BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 11 December (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Burma

David Burrowes: What representations he has made to the Burmese Government on resolving the situation in Rakhine state.

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to promote peace and reconciliation in Burma.

Richard Fuller: What steps he is taking with the Burmese and Bangladeshi Governments to assist the Rohingya Muslim community.

Hugo Swire: We continue to raise our concerns about the recent violence in Rakhine state, as well as the conflict in Kachin and Shan states, with Burmese Ministers and Aung San Suu Kyi. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the plight of the Rohingya community in recent discussions with the Burmese President, stressing the need to resolve their citizenship status. Officials continue to emphasise the importance of our humanitarian aid programmes in Bangladesh and Rakhine with the Bangladeshi and Burmese Governments.

David Burrowes: I thank the Minister for that response. Does it not surprise him that Aung San Suu Kyi, the most respected and peaceable person in Burma, has been in effect excluded from steps to resolve the situation in Rakhine? Will he urge the Burmese Government to invite Aung San Suu Kyi to visit Rakhine state as soon as possible to help to calm the situation?

Hugo Swire: We very much welcome the statement that Aung San Suu Kyi made on 9 November, as chairman of the parliamentary committee on the rule of law, on the situation in Rakhine state. The issue was raised with her by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when she was here in June, and our ambassador has raised it with her since. I will travel to that part of the world shortly and I will certainly discuss the issue with her, because I believe she has a role in resolving it and, indeed, all the problems facing Burma today.

Barry Sheerman: We hear what the Minister says, but the situation is of great concern to all of us who care about minorities. I have been a critic in this House of the way in which Christians have been treated by Muslims in Pakistan—that is on the record—but this is a question of Muslims being persecuted in Burma. Can the United Nations and this country’s leadership and Government not do something about it?

Hugo Swire: Of course we remain extremely concerned about the situation in Burma, but we believe that it is moving in the right direction. We welcome President Obama’s recent visit there and I shall be taking a trade delegation on my visit. We believe that engaging with the Government commercially as well as politically is the right way to proceed. We are concerned about the ethnic violence and issues of religion, and we remain concerned—I shall raise these points forcefully when I am there—about the issue of the remaining political prisoners.

Richard Fuller: The Minister has rightly focused on issues regarding the Rohingya community in Burma, but equally there are hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh and 20,000 or 30,000 of them in refugee camps. What steps can the Minister take to persuade the Bangladesh Government to begin the registration of undocumented Rohingya refugees and to provide access for non-governmental organisations to the refugee camps?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The issue was raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during a meeting with the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, on 28 July. The former Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), raised it with Prime Minister Hasina on 12 August. My noble friend Baroness Warsi raised it with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, in October 2012 and the British high commissioner has also raised it in Bangladesh. It is important that we get aid to that part of Rakhine and that the Bangladeshis make it possible for that aid to reach the people.

Meg Munn: The development of democracy in Burma will be successful only if it is pluralistic—a position that has long been held by the British Government. Is the Minister satisfied with the position that is being taken within the European Union, and what discussions has he had with his counterparts about ensuring that the common position does not move too quickly towards removing all sanctions and developing trade with Burma until all ethnic groupings are properly involved in its democracy?

Hugo Swire: As I have said, we have taken the view that the best way to encourage Burma on the path that we believe the President has set is to engage with them. We have taken a number of trade delegations there and I shall be taking one myself shortly. I have written to the chairman of the all-party group on Burma, the noble Baroness Kinnock, and, when I return from that part of the world—this will be in the new year—I am prepared happily to talk through what I will have learnt on the ground. I think I will be one of the few Ministers to have been to that area, so I will be able to give the hon. Lady a first-hand account of what I think is going on there.

Roger Williams: While the focus has been on the Rohingya people and the atrocities that they have faced, including the destruction of a mosque recently, everybody in the area is suffering as a result of these problems. Will the Minister tell us how the humanitarian aid that we are providing will encourage a resolution to the difficulties?

Hugo Swire: I am pleased to say that we have an extremely good track record in that respect. We are one of the largest aid donors to Burma and have allocated £187 million to it over four years, which includes support for the process of ethnic reconciliation. We announced another £27 million in November for the humanitarian support of refugees and internally displaced people and for peace-building activities, drawing on our experiences in Northern Ireland. We have provided a further £2 million to Kachin, where there are 27,500 internally displaced people. We have a record that is second to none in providing the aid that is sorely needed in that part of the world.

Kerry McCarthy: I know from my visit to Burma in July that the country will welcome the trade delegation that the Minister is leading. However, I am concerned that, from feedback I have had and questions I have asked about other trade delegations that have been led by the Foreign Office in recent months, it seems that very little has been said about human rights on those trips. Will the Minister assure me that the plight of the Rohingya, the fate of political prisoners and other human rights issues in Burma will be very much on his agenda when he goes to Burma?

Hugo Swire: I can certainly give the hon. Lady that assurance. Trade is one part of what we are doing, as I have attempted to outline this morning. We believe in trade because, by engaging in it, we can form relationships and show the people of Burma what future they can have. However, that we are trying to increase our bilateral trade does not mean for a moment that we will ignore our drive for increased human rights and the recognition of different ethnic groups in Burma. I shall make those points to all the politicians I meet there. Indeed, I have made those points to the Burmese politicians I have already met.

Middle East

Simon Hughes: What his Department’s priorities for the middle east are in 2013.

William Hague: My priority for the middle east is to support peace and stability by urging the United States, with the strong and active support of the EU, to take a decisive lead in pushing the peace process forward; ending the violence in Syria; securing a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question; and supporting democratic transitions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his commitment to those matters. Those of us who for the whole of our adult lives have been supporters of the state of Israel and of a state for Palestine were pleased by the decision of the United Nations last week, but dismayed by the response of the Israeli Government, who suggested that settlements should be built to the east of Jerusalem, effectively separating the two parts of the west bank. What does the Foreign Secretary think is the best way of getting the message through to the Israeli Government that that is neither the way to win friends nor the way to win peace?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything that he has just said. We summoned the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office yesterday to hear exactly that message from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has responsibility for the middle east. If implemented, the plans that were announced on Friday would alter the situation on the ground on a scale that would make the two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital almost inconceivable, or certainly very difficult to implement. Much as we had misgivings, for some of the same reasons, about pressing for a resolution at the United Nations, we think that that was the wrong way for Israel to react. That message is coming loud and clear from all around Europe and the United States.

Ian Austin: Summoning the Israeli ambassador for a stage-managed dressing down will achieve nothing and nor, quite frankly, will the isolation of Israel at the United Nations. Should Ministers not be redoubling their efforts to get Palestinians and Israelis who are prepared to talk to each other and who want to see peace to work together, because that is the only way we will achieve any progress towards a stable, two-state solution with a secure and safe Israel living peacefully alongside a viable and democratic Palestinian state?

William Hague: I agree with the main point of the hon. Gentleman’s question, although I assure him that nothing that the my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does is stage-managed. He imparted very clearly indeed the message that I think the whole House would agree with. The main point of the hon. Gentleman’s question is what I have expressed in all our discussions in the House over the past two weeks. Despite all the events of the past week, we have to achieve a return to negotiations and we particularly need the United States to play its necessary role in that. That is the only way in which we will secure a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one urgent priority must be for his Department to do whatever it can to help to
	end the indiscriminate carnage of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians by their own regime? May I commend him for persuading his European colleagues that reviews of the current arms embargo must be held every three months and not every year, and will he give urgent consideration to persuading his European colleagues—and, indeed, the Government—at least to allow air defence equipment to be made available to those trying to protect civilian communities throughout Syria?

William Hague: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is right: last week the Government persuaded colleagues in the European Union that rather than roll over all sanctions on Syria for 12 months, including the arms embargo, we should do so for three months to allow ourselves flexibility to respond to a changing situation. As he knows, I do not follow him all the way in saying that we should supply air defence equipment, although opposition groups in Syria are clearly acquiring a variety of anti-aircraft weapons. The Government will be intensifying further not only our humanitarian assistance but our diplomatic efforts—including with Russia—to try to find a way forward on Syria.

Gerald Kaufman: Is not the building of additional illegal settlements, in addition to settlements that already house 500,000 people, a blatant breach of international law, together with the theft by the Israeli Government of huge sums of tax revenues belonging to the Palestinians? When will we take action such as economic sanctions or an arms embargo against this rogue state that is committing criminal acts?

William Hague: The settlements are illegal and on occupied land, and the latest announcement undermines Israel’s international reputation and creates doubts about its stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians. The Government have, of course, strongly advised Israel to reverse that decision. I spoke to the Israeli Foreign and Defence Ministers over the weekend, in addition to what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, has done. We must remember, however, the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin): only successful negotiation will resolve this issue, and that will require the willing participation of Israel as well as the Palestinians.

Martin Horwood: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with our European partners following the General Assembly vote and Israel’s extremely regrettable response, bearing in mind the fact that the European Union is Israel’s most important trading and economic partner?

William Hague: I am working closely with the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, with whom I spoke over the weekend. That was why the UK and France together summoned the Israeli ambassadors yesterday, and other EU partners then did the same. I have also been talking to the French and German Foreign Ministers about how we can more actively support a US initiative in the area over the coming month, with European states contributing to incentives and disincentives for both sides to return to negotiations.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary has shared with the House a number of calls that he has made to Ministers over recent days on the middle east. Given the announcement by the Israeli Government about further expansion of settlements, which we have already discussed, and the summoning of the Israeli ambassador to King Charles street yesterday, will the Foreign Secretary explain how abstaining in last week’s vote at the United Nations enhanced the UK’s influence with either Israel or the Palestinians?

William Hague: The United Kingdom is in exactly the same position as before regarding influence with the Palestinians and Israel. We have frank but warm relations with the Palestinians and, of course, we are always able to speak to the Israelis. Countries that voted no or yes or abstained were all in the same position over the weekend in disapproving of the Israeli decision and placing pressure on Israel to reverse it. I do not believe that the different ways in which we voted in the General Assembly made any difference to that.

Douglas Alexander: Let me ask a practical question. In the light of the decision by the Israeli Government to withhold £75 million of Palestinian customs duties, what conversations have Ministers had in recent days with international partners on how to sustain a functioning Palestinian authority? In the immediate term, that would ensure the continuing operation of Palestinian security forces on the west bank, but in the medium term it holds out the prospect of credible negotiating partners for the Israelis.

William Hague: Of course we are in discussions with other countries on this matter. We must assess exactly what the financial implications are. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are already a major donor to the Palestinian Authority and the fourth biggest donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The immediate action has been that the consul general in Jerusalem and a Department for International Development team have visited Gaza to assess the situation there, but we must see how we can further assist if there is a deepening financial crisis in the Palestinian Authority.

Libya

David Mowat: What discussions his Department has had with the Libyan Government on reparations for previous victims of Libyan Semtex.

Alistair Burt: The Gaddafi regime left a terrible legacy, with many victims both in Libya and in the UK. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have consistently raised Gaddafi’s relationship with the IRA when we have seen the Libyan authorities.

David Mowat: It is now accepted that Libya provided the Semtex used both at Lockerbie and at the Warrington bombing in 1993. The US Government are vigorously pursuing a claim on behalf of the Lockerbie victims, whereas the UK is more passive in its support for the equivalent McCue case. Will the Minister review our position and undertake to go the extra mile for the UK victims, including those living in Warrington?

Alistair Burt: I know my hon. Friend’s position and his close relationship with those who suffered in Warrington, not least Colin Parry and his family. It has not been the UK’s position specifically to support individual compensation claims—that has been done privately—but the UK has offered facilitation and support to those making such claims. More important, the UK has also been able to support a process of reconciliation with the new Libyan authorities to make good the comment of President Magarief at the UN in September—he apologised for the crimes of the despot and is looking to try to ensure that things are repaired. We are working continually with the Libyan authorities on that. I am going there next week to help in that process.

Mr Speaker: We are obliged to the Minister.

Single Market

Gordon Banks: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on protecting the integrity of the single market.

David Lidington: I regularly discuss the single market with my counterparts both at bilateral meetings and in formal sessions of the Council.

Gordon Banks: With the Prime Minister increasingly marginalised and nobody believing a word that comes out of the Scottish First Minister’s mouth, what can the Minister do to protect the £9.7 billion of exports from Scotland to the EU, and to ensure that there is a credible single market in future?

David Lidington: I fear that the hon. Gentleman wrote his question before he saw the outcome of the European Council at the end of last month. Given the emphasis he places on trade, I am sure he will have warmly welcomed our Prime Minister’s intervention to secure the free trade agreement between the EU and South Korea, which is already delivering opportunities for British businesses. I am sure he will also welcome the British Government’s strong support for the opening of trade negotiations between Europe and Japan, which was agreed last week.

John Baron: Now that the penny has finally dropped within the eurozone that it cannot have monetary union without fiscal union, which in turn leads to closer political and economic union, what guarantees can the Government give that a caucus within the eurozone will not override UK interests within the single market?

David Lidington: This is something to which we are giving priority both in the immediate discussions on banking union and in all future negotiations on the future of the EU. I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend. The requirements of the single market are written into the treaties and the terms of numerous items of EU legislation. On top of that, all 27 Heads of State and Government have made repeated commitments at European Councils that they are committed to defend the integrity of the single market.

Bob Ainsworth: But the Minister knows how important access to the single market is to our ability to attract foreign investment in, for example, car manufacturing. Surely he admits that there is a growing resistance in Europe to what is seen as the Government’s à la carte approach to their membership. Does he accept that that is becoming dangerous to our economic interests?

David Lidington: Our colleagues in the EU fully accept that we have taken a sovereign decision, which I thought was supported on both sides of the House, to stay out of the euro. It therefore follows that we do not take part in certain arrangements. However, I also find that my European counterparts are eager to work closely with us on measures to develop free trade further; to strengthen the single market—for example, to cover the digital economy, transport and energy—and to find ways to cut the cost and complexity of regulation, which applies to all European businesses.

Tony Baldry: There appear to be a number of siren voices now starting to question the value of the single market to the United Kingdom. Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, do some detailed work to set out the exact value to the UK of our being part of the single market, and put that work in the Library?

David Lidington: A lot of this type of information is likely to emerge from submissions by businesses and their representative organisations to the balance of competences review which is now under way. To take one example, British car manufacturers would probably face tariffs of just under £1 billion a year were we to be outside the single market and paying the 10% tariff to export to the EU. Membership of the single market directly sustains jobs and prosperity in places such as Swindon, Solihull and Washington New Town.

Middle East

Ann McKechin: What steps he is taking to encourage Israel to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza.

William Hague: During the recent Gaza conflict, I underlined to Israel the need to abide by international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties. I welcome the ceasefire reached on 21 November, and I am urging all parties to fulfil their commitments under that agreement.

Ann McKechin: Although I welcome the ceasefire, does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns that UN figures show that since 2003 as many Gazans have died during periods of calm as they have during periods of conflict? That appears to show that there has been systemic failure by the Israelis in protecting civilians in Gaza. What he is going to do about that?

William Hague: Of course we are concerned about the wider situation, including the humanitarian situation—I spoke a moment ago about the visit of the Department for International Development and the consul general.
	It is why we urge all parties concerned to take the opportunity that might arise from the tragic events of the past few weeks not only to observe the ceasefire but to go on to make agreements that will open up Gaza to trade and to development more effectively, and to end the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. If those things could be achieved, the situation would be much brighter for all the people of Gaza.

Bob Blackman: During the recent conflict, many of the rockets fired from Gaza never actually left Gaza and injured large numbers of Palestinians. At the same time, the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt appear to have reopened, allowing the Iranian-supplied missiles to be restocked in Hamas’s arsenal. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to stop that practice, so that conflict does not arise again?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to those factors. The answer is connected to the answer I gave a moment ago to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin). There is an opportunity for Egyptian-led negotiations to bring the smuggling of weapons to an end, and to open up access into Gaza. That is an opportunity that all concerned must seize. We have strongly encouraged the Egyptian Foreign Minister in that work. I congratulated him on the night of the ceasefire on achieving that. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who has responsibility for the middle east, has spoken to the Egyptians to encourage this—it is the way forward.

Frank Roy: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what recent discussions he has had with the Russian Government in relation to Gaza and Syria?

William Hague: I will be with the Russian Foreign Minister on several occasions this week, including in Dublin on Thursday at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit, so I anticipate holding discussions with the Russians during the course of this week.

Yemen

Keith Vaz: What steps he is taking to support political transition in Yemen.

Alistair Burt: The United Kingdom plays a leading role in supporting the political transition efforts in Yemen. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary chairs the Friends of Yemen ministerial group, and our ambassador is in regular contact with Government, the opposition and civil society in Yemen.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for giving Yemen their personal attention. I draw his attention to the publication today of the Amnesty International report showing that Ansar al-Sharia might be resurgent in the southern part of Yemen. They were responsible for extra-judicial killings, crucifixions and torture. What support can the Government give to President Hadi to deal with this terrible group?

Alistair Burt: In return, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his unfailing attention to this, his courtesy in dealing with us and our officials, and the work of his all-party group.
	The circumstances in the south continue to cause great concern. I am aware of the Amnesty International report, and we will continue to work in the south to bring the parties together and resolve the political difficulties that are now part of the national political dialogue. However, the re-entry into the area of such an unpleasant and dangerous group will be a focus of a visit to Yemen that I hope to make in the not-too-distant future, when I hope to be able to raise the subject directly with the authorities there.

Rory Stewart: Will the Minister please ensure that the political settlement process remains as genuinely inclusive as possible? In particular, will he ensure that the temptation to exclude the Houthi group, for being pro-Iranian, or parts of the Hirak, because of their extremism, is resisted and that as many people as possible are at the table?

Alistair Burt: As my hon. Friend knows from his own recent activities there, the Yemeni process manages to bring together people who, in other circumstances, it might be difficult to get round the table. I have not yet experienced a sense of exclusion of certain parties, but it is always a danger. If there is to be an answer in Yemen—among the many difficulties in the region, the process in Yemen towards a political transition has been more successful than most—it is essential that it comprises all those with a role to play. Certainly, his concerns will be borne in mind by the ambassador and all the rest of us.

Middle East

Chi Onwurah: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Israel and Gaza.

Stephen Timms: What his latest assessment is of the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Duncan Hames: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Israel and Palestine.

William Hague: We welcome the agreed ceasefire following the crisis in Gaza. The recent violence only highlights the urgent need for the United States, supported by the UK and other partners, to launch a new initiative to push the peace process forward in 2013 to achieve a two-state solution.

Chi Onwurah: Like many MPs, I am sure, I have been overwhelmed by messages from constituents asking me to express their horror and despair at the violence and the casualties in Gaza. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary offer them regarding the security of civilians in Gaza, and does he agree that there cannot be a two-state solution without secure and viable borders for both states?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. The way forward is what we discussed a few moments ago: to make a success of the second stage of the ceasefire negotiations. Egypt did a very good job, supported by the UN Secretary-General and the United States, in bringing about the ceasefire. Now it is important to conclude the second stage, which will bring—we hope—improved access and an end to the smuggling of weapons. The hon. Lady is right to say that secure borders are necessary for Israel, as, too, is having a viable, sovereign state of Palestine. That is what we want for Palestinians.

Stephen Timms: The Foreign Secretary told the House earlier that the additional settlement building in the E1 area of East Jerusalem announced last week would clearly be unlawful. What prospect is there of prevailing on Israel to comply instead with the requirements of international law?

William Hague: That is the point that the world is stressing to Israel—that those settlements are illegal, that they are on occupied land and, in particular, that the unfreezing of development in what is known as the E1 block threatens the prospect of a future Palestinian state being able to operate on contiguous land. This point is being made strongly, not only by us and our European partners but by the US and the whole Arab world. I hope that despite the election campaign in Israel—election campaigns affect the politics of any country—it will listen carefully to those points.

Duncan Hames: I welcome those comments from the Foreign Secretary, but we have been here before, and he must grow weary of repeating to the Israeli Government his condemnation of illegal settlement activity. Given the importance of Europe as a market for Israeli goods and services, which European Ministers shy away from putting economic muscle behind our protestations, and can he assure the House that he is not one of them?

William Hague: I do not think there is enthusiasm around the European Union for that. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked earlier about economic sanctions in Europe against Israel, but I do not believe there would be anywhere near a consensus on that, nor is it our approach. We continue to try to bring both sides back into negotiations. Nevertheless, if there is no reversal of the decision that has been announced, we will want to consider what further steps European countries can take and I will discuss that with my counterparts in other EU nations.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that peace talks would bring added security to Israel and Gaza? What steps does he intend to take to get the parties to the table again? Indeed, what steps would need to be taken to introduce a sanctions regime, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)?

William Hague: On the latter point, my reaction is the one I have already given. On the steps that are necessary to resume negotiations, of course this will require all sides to draw back from steps that make entering into negotiations more difficult. We have seen a sequence over the last week that has taken us further away from negotiations, rather than closer to them. This will require the decisive
	involvement of the United States. Indeed, I have said to Secretary Clinton that it will require from the United States the greatest efforts since the Oslo peace accords—a level of that intensity—to carry forward and restart the negotiation process.

Louise Ellman: Further to the Foreign Secretary’s earlier reply, now that Iranian-manufactured weapons have been fired from Gaza and have landed in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, what urgent action is he taking to stop the transportation of such weapons and how concerned is he about Iran’s role in fomenting conflict in the region?

William Hague: I am very concerned about Iran’s role, as I think I have said before in the House. Indeed, there is substantial evidence of Iranian involvement and Iranian weapons being supplied, including those fired against Israel. The hon. Lady is quite right about that. Of course, the solution to that is ending the smuggling of weapons in Gaza from wherever they come—from Iran or anywhere else. It is now possible to reach such an agreement, with good will and further effort after the ceasefire agreement on all sides, so our main effort will be supporting that diplomatic initiative.

Menzies Campbell: Is not one of the most offensive features of recent days the fact that the exercise of a legal right by the Palestinians at the United Nations has been met by illegal retaliation by the Israeli Government? Does my right hon. Friend accept that such illegal action serves only to undermine the authority of Mahmoud Abbas—and indeed of the Palestinian National Authority, which he leads—and in addition encourages those Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, who wrongly believe that violence is justified?

William Hague: The announcement of additional housing units and the unfreezing of development in the E1 block undermines Israel’s reputation, as I said earlier, but it also undermines the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to bring about a two-state solution and could therefore embolden more extreme elements. These are among the reasons why it is an unwise policy and why we will look to Israel to reverse it.

Richard Burden: The Foreign Secretary has told us of the representations that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), have made to the Israeli Government. Will he tell us something of Israel’s response to those representations? What assessment has he made of the growing legal opinion internationally that anyone who trades with an illegal entity is themselves complicit in an illegal act?

William Hague: Clearly the Israeli Government have not yet changed or reversed their decision. Ambassadors in these situations take back the representations of the host Government, which the Israeli ambassador committed himself to do at the meeting with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire. We will continue to make such representations, as will so many other countries, but Sunday’s cabinet did not reverse the decision that was announced on Friday, so we will need to continue with this work.
	The answer on trade and sanctions is really the one I gave earlier. Arms exports are covered by our consolidated criteria—we look at those strictly—but it is highly unlikely that wider economic measures in any direction will contribute to peace in the middle east.

Mr Speaker: I cannot fault the comprehensiveness of the right hon. Gentleman’s reply. We are genuinely grateful; he is trying to help the House.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a retrograde step to break off diplomatic relations with Israel, especially given that successive Israeli Governments have said that they would withdraw from most of the west bank under a properly negotiated treaty?

William Hague: We hope of course that that will happen in due course. Diplomacy is what is needed most of all in this situation, so I do not think that we would contemplate breaking off diplomatic relations with any of those involved, but we are going to have to ramp up our diplomatic efforts in various ways. I am not going to rule out any diplomatic options over the coming weeks.

EU Banking Union

Chris Ruane: What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the UK’s position at the December 2012 European Council meeting on the development of a banking union.

William Bain: What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the UK’s position at the December 2012 European Council meeting on the development of a banking union.

David Lidington: I have made it clear to my colleagues in the European Union that while we accept that the eurozone needs a banking union, the detailed arrangements need to safeguard the interests of those member states that will not be part of the eurozone or of the banking union.

Chris Ruane: This Government are relatively friendless in Europe in this regard. How will they ensure that any agreement on a banking union will continue to allow the UK to stay in the room during negotiations on shaping the supervisory rules?

David Lidington: I reject the hon. Gentleman’s caricature of our position. We are playing an extremely active and constructive part in the negotiations. We recognise that getting the arrangements for a banking union sorted out is of real importance to our friends and partners who have committed themselves to the single currency, and that their financial stability will be of great benefit to the United Kingdom’s economic interests.

William Bain: The International Monetary Fund’s Christine Lagarde said at the weekend that a banking union was the first priority in saving the eurozone. If the Minister agrees with that, will he tell us precisely how many EU states agree with his plan for double majority voting to
	ensure that rules applying to banks in Britain are not dictated by a banking union bloc through the European Banking Authority?

David Lidington: All 27 EU Heads of State and Government said in the conclusions to the October European Council that, in the arrangements for a banking union, there needed to be a “level playing field” between the ins and the outs, as well as safeguards
	“in full respect of the integrity of the single market in financial services.”

William Cash: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the blueprint published over the weekend by Mr Barroso, which contains 50 pages of detailed proposals for a full banking, fiscal and, ultimately, political union? Does he think that any of the proposals that this country has made have the remotest chance of being listened to in the context of that document, and of what Mr Noyer said the other day? Lastly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee receives an early explanatory memorandum from the Government on those proposals?

Mr Speaker: I know that the legendary intellectual agility of the Minister of State will enable him to provide one pithy reply to the three questions that have just been posed.

David Lidington: I read President Barroso’s comments with interest. He was of course talking not about the immediate negotiations on a banking union but about the longer-term development of the eurozone and how to safeguard its stability. That objective is in the interests of the United Kingdom, but it is true to say that at some stage there needs to be a sensible, grown-up conversation between all members of the EU to work out the right architecture for a future Europe in which some will be members of the single currency and others will remain outside it.

Angus Robertson: At the recent European Union Council, the UK held a quadrilateral meeting with the Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes and the Finns. Will the Minister take this opportunity to outline the areas of common interest with those nations, and to underscore the importance of joint working with our northern European neighbours?

David Lidington: We talk to our northern European neighbours and, indeed, to other member states about the whole range of issues on the agenda of any particular European Council meeting. The countries that are not in the single currency certainly have a common interest in ensuring that whatever arrangements the eurozone may agree—they are some distance from agreeing among themselves about the right design at the moment—they take proper account of the integrity of the single market and the interests of those who are not part of the euro.

Emma Reynolds: Following the failure of the Government’s too little, too late approach to the recent EU budget negotiations and given the Government’s isolation in Europe, there are now indications that the Prime Minister is preparing to cede powers and influence over the eurozone banking union in return for minor tweaks to the EU budget.
	Is there not now a real risk that the Government will neither secure a good deal for British taxpayers nor deliver safeguards to British business on the banking union?

David Lidington: That was another script written before the European Council concluded. I have to say to the hon. Lady not only that this Government have a confirmed commitment and record of working to secure the national interest of the United Kingdom, but that that record sits in stark contrast with the record of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who gave away £7 billion of the United Kingdom’s rebate when he held this office.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I gently say to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has now left the Chamber and for whom I have the highest regard, that it is a courtesy to remain within the Chamber until all exchanges on the question posed have been completed. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Stone is as interested in everybody else’s opinions as he undoubtedly is in his own.

Syria

Mike Gapes: What recent reports he has received on the humanitarian situation in Syria.

William Hague: The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire. We have provided £53.5 million of assistance so far and are urging others to increase donations to the UN appeal.

Mike Gapes: Forty thousand dead, 2.5 million internally displaced, 200,000 refugees and, yesterday, more people killed in Syria by the Ba’athist regime than were killed in the whole of the Gaza conflict. President Obama has talked about “serious consequences” if Assad uses chemical weapons. Why are there no serious consequences already from the international community about what is going on in Syria, and what does President Obama mean by “serious consequences”?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the policy we have pursued towards Syria. There is no military solution in Syria; we are seeking a peaceful, political and diplomatic solution. We continue to do that, while recognising the new national coalition of the opposition, giving it increased but non-lethal assistance and delivering humanitarian aid on the scale I have described. I want to reiterate what President Obama has said—that any use of chemical or biological weapons would be even more abhorrent than anything we have seen so far. We have made it clear that this would draw a serious response from the international community. We have made that very clear to representatives of the Syrian regime and have said that we would seek to hold them responsible for such actions.

Peter Tapsell: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement a few minutes ago that he will shortly have further discussions with Russia. How will he respond if the Russians make it clear that they are not going to allow a western-backed Sunni rebellion to overthrow the Alawite regime?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend’s question poses a number of questions. As we have discussed before, the motivations of the opposition in Syria are very complex. Yes, there is of course a lot of Sunni influence, but people of many different religious affiliations are involved in the opposition. They are not merely western-backed—they are particularly Arab-backed, so I would not want to define them as a western-backed opposition. It is in Russia’s interest to agree to a diplomatic solution for a transitional Government in Syria, and I hope the Russians will see the arguments for that at the meetings this week and subsequently.

Rwanda/DRC

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Rwanda on violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mark Simmonds: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have pressed Presidents Kagame and Kabila to work together to end the crisis. When I spoke at the United Nations in September, I made it clear that external support for the M23 rebels must stop. We welcome the communiqués that were issued recently by the Presidents of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda, but it is crucial that they are translated into action to achieve sustainable stability in the eastern DRC.

Tom Blenkinsop: The final report from the United Nations group of experts on M23 and the DRC has been publicly released, and the Prime Minister himself has said that the international community cannot ignore evidence of Rwandan involvement with M23. In view of the report, does the Secretary of State think that the decision of the former Secretary of State for International Development to reinstate budget support was wise?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of the report from the UN group of experts, which has formed part of the information that the International Development Secretary has considered in reaching a decision about the aid budget and direct support for the Rwandan Government. However, the communiqués issued by the Ugandan, Rwandan and DRC Presidents stipulate that there must be a solution to the problem in the eastern DRC, which means not just a resolution of the conflict now but longer-term measures to ensure that the cycle of conflict is broken.

John Spellar: In September, when the former International Development Secretary gave £21 million of aid to Rwanda, what advice did the Department offer ahead of his decision? What advice did it offer last week, when the current Secretary of State cancelled the money? Was it different from the advice that was given in September?

Mark Simmonds: Before the decision made in September by the former Secretary of State and the decisions made by the current Secretary of State, the Foreign Office and other relevant Departments were consulted, and the decisions were made across Government with the full agreement of those Departments.

Topical Questions

Sheila Gilmore: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: Today I shall attend the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels, where I shall support Turkey’s request for NATO to deploy Patriot missiles in Turkey. Tomorrow I shall host a trilateral meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Afghanistan and Pakistan to discuss Pakistan’s support for the stabilisation of Afghanistan.

Sheila Gilmore: I have listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary’s responses in relation to Israel and Palestine, but can he explain to us clearly what advantage was gained by Britain’s abstention in the recent UN vote on Palestinian recognition?

William Hague: I think that we were right to argue that pressing a resolution at the United Nations at this juncture—at this very moment—could lead to fresh complications, that we were right to argue that its amendment would have mitigated the consequences, and that we are right to argue now that Israel should not expand settlements on occupied land. All those positions are, I believe, correct.

Simon Hughes: Do Ministers consider it a possibility that next year it could be a UK Government priority and a European Union priority to seek to end the division of Cyprus once its new President has been elected in February, given the good will that I understand to exist in both communities in Cyprus—in part—in Turkey, and, I hope, in Greece?

David Lidington: I certainly hope that that will prove possible, but clearly a major new initiative must await the outcome of the Cypriot presidential election in February. I hope that whoever is elected will set ambitious goals, working with Turkish Cypriot leaders, the guarantor powers, the United Nations and others to bring about a settlement that would be profoundly in the interests of all communities on the island.

Douglas Alexander: In view of heightened international anxiety about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria, the United States has indicated that it is preparing contingency plans. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the British Government’s assessment of that potential threat has been heightened in recent days, and whether the United Kingdom is contributing, or has already contributed, to international contingency planning?

William Hague: Yes, our understanding of the threat has been heightened in recent days. We have seen some of the same evidence as the United States. I cannot give any more details, but I can say that we have already reacted diplomatically. We have expressed in no uncertain terms, directly to the Syrian regime, the gravity of any use of chemical weapons. In our view, as the Prime Minister has said before, that would require us to revisit
	our approach to Syria. I cannot, of course, discuss contingency plans in any detail, but we in the UK, including those of us in the Ministry of Defence, are always ready with a wide range of such plans.

Christopher Pincher: As chairman of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, yesterday I met representatives of the Azerbaijan Foundation of Democracy Development and Human Rights Protection. They made clear to me their strong desire to see the development of a free press in Azerbaijan. What can Britain and the British Government do to promote a free and unregulated press in Azerbaijan and the south Caucasus?

David Lidington: I share my hon. Friend’s view that a free press is integral to democracy in any country. The British Government have provided funding for professional training for journalists in Azerbaijan, and we support vigorously the work of the Council of Europe, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to encourage and promote media freedom both in Azerbaijan and more widely in the southern Caucasus region.

Jenny Chapman: On trade with the middle east, what discussions have been held with the European Commission on the labelling of settlement goods?

Alistair Burt: The EU is actively considering whether the voluntary labelling scheme that has been in existence in the United Kingdom for some time might be extended to other countries. This matter is frequently taken up by our representatives, and discussions are ongoing.

Richard Ottaway: The alarm bells are ringing over President Morsi of Egypt’s vast expansion of powers by presidential decree. A generous interpretation is that he is trying, by hook or by crook, to get the constitution on to the statute book; less charitably, it could be seen as a path to an Islamic state without the involvement of, or consultation with, Christians, liberals or women. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment?

William Hague: My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the arguments on both sides in Egypt, and we have taken the view that it is not helpful for us to give a day-to-day commentary on a political controversy or struggle within that country. We are, of course, calling for effective dialogue between all the parties involved in Egypt, and we have expressed our concerns if a democratic constitution cannot be agreed that is satisfactory to most of the country, but there will be a referendum, now scheduled for 15 December, and it is interesting to note that as of yesterday the Salafists, who are on the more strongly Islamic wing of Egyptian politics, are threatening to boycott the referendum because the proposal is not Islamic enough.

Ben Bradshaw: Is it not clear that the Netanyahu Government are completely impervious to words of condemnation or even the summoning of ambassadors, and that the time has
	come for action? Uncharacteristically, the Secretary of State dodged earlier questions about trade with the illegal settlements. Will he now take the lead in Europe by implementing a ban on all trade with the settlements, which, as he himself has repeated again in this House, are illegal?

William Hague: My reaction to calls for economic sanctions of various kinds has not changed, but I also want to stress another point I made earlier: we will be discussing with other EU nations what our next steps will be, because the Israeli Government have not yet responded favourably to the representations we and other countries have made. We will be discussing that with other European Governments, therefore, but I would not want to raise the right hon. Gentleman’s hopes that there would be enthusiasm around the EU for such economic measures.

Andrew Rosindell: I know the Minister will join me in welcoming the premiers, chief ministers and Heads of Government of the British overseas territories, who are in London this week for the first overseas territories ministerial council. Will he update the House on the progress the Government are making with our overseas territories following the publication of this year’s White Paper?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, and I congratulate him on the important work he has done in ensuring there are strengthening ties between the UK and the overseas territories. As he said, most, if not all, the overseas territories leaders are in London this week for the first joint ministerial council, at which we will be exploring how the UK Government, and most of the UK Government Departments, can strengthen ties in respect of financial and fiscal responsibility, building capacity in the Governments of the overseas territories and, importantly, strengthening environmental and economic and trade ties.

Grahame Morris: In the light of the increasing instability in the middle east and concerns about a possible nuclear arms race in the region, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what pressure the British Government are exerting on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

William Hague: This is a long-running issue, on top of all the other issues concerning Israel and the middle east that we have discussed today. Israel has maintained a position over decades of not signing the NPT. In the last review conference of the NPT we strongly encouraged that there should be a conference dedicated to the middle east, and a Finnish facilitator of that conference has now been appointed. Disappointingly, the conference is not taking place this year, but we hope it will take place soon.

George Freeman: May I support the Government’s work towards an arms trade treaty? Does the Minister agree that as we seek to build a more sustainable economic model, we would do well to think about selling to the fastest-emerging nations our leadership in science—in agriculture and medicine—rather than arms?

Alistair Burt: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for our work on an arms trade treaty, and we head towards a final conference at the UN next March seeking a robust, effective and legally binding one. His point about extending our opportunities through life sciences to growing economies—the USA, Canada, Brazil and India—is well taken. UK Trade and Investment is working hard on this matter and has already supported life science conferences in Abu Dhabi, Brazil and Germany this year.

Kevin Brennan: Why was the Foreign Secretary unsuccessful in stopping the former International Development Secretary’s decision to restore aid to Rwanda, despite the breach of the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda—or was he fully in favour of that decision?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history. The previous Secretary of State for International Development first suspended direct budgetary support to Rwanda in July. He then, through detailed consultation with the Foreign Office and other Departments, partially restored it in September. The report by the group of experts, whose evidence we find compelling and credible, came out and we analysed it. As the partnership agreements between DFID and the Rwandan Government were also clearly not being honoured, the decision was made by the International Development Secretary, in consultation with Departments, to suspend direct budgetary support to Rwanda.

Brooks Newmark: Rape is a pernicious weapon of war. Given the violence inflicted on women in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo by the M23, what conversations is the Minister having with his counterparts in Rwanda to get them to use their influence to end such violence?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is right to raise this very important issue. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has instigated a policy and a determination to instil a preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative to end immunity. I have had discussions in the region with senior Ministers in the Rwandan Government and with the President of the DRC to try to encourage them to engage with this very important initiative, to stop not just the rapes, but having child soldiers in the eastern DRC.

Jonathan Ashworth: Ministers have been careful not to accuse the Burmese Government of orchestrating the violence towards the Rohingya. Last night, al-Jazeera released new evidence to suggest that the Burmese authorities, the military, the security services and local government officials have been involved in that sectarian violence towards the Rohingya. Will the Minister examine that evidence? If he finds it compelling, will he make the strongest possible representations to the Burmese Government that this violence has to end and that the Rohingya should be granted citizenship?

Hugo Swire: Of course the Burmese Government have set up an internal review into what has gone on in Rakhine, and we await the outcome of that. I can say to the hon. Gentleman only what I said
	earlier in the House: I shall travel to the area shortly and on my return I shall make myself available to the all-party group on Burma, when I will be able to pass on first-hand experience of what I have found on the ground, rather than some of these stories coming out of Burma at the moment.

Margot James: There are substantial opportunities for trade with Brazil as it prepares for the Olympics and World cup. Being able to speak Portuguese is a big advantage in doing business in Brazil, so will my right hon. Friend outline what progress is being made in improving foreign language skills for the purpose of boosting trade?

Hugo Swire: We are very keen to improve foreign language skills, not least in Brazil. I was there on a visit with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few months ago, and one of the things we discussed was getting more people to learn English in Brazil. We have had some extremely successful visits to Brazil by the sports Minister and others in the run-up to the Rio Olympics. As my hon. Friend says, our bilateral relations with Brazil are extremely good, and we hope that we can look forward to a period of increased trade.

Anas Sarwar: Actions speak louder than words and despite the Foreign Secretary’s comments that our vote last week at the UN made no difference to our negotiation position, I can assure him that the UK’s failure to back the Palestinian resolution has severely undermined our credibility in the middle east. What actions are the UK Government taking to end the growth of illegal settlements and end the siege and blockade on Gaza?

William Hague: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will visit the Gulf over the weekend and I think that we will find that UK influence is as strong as it was. It has grown considerably in recent years, and that will continue. We are making efforts, which I have described throughout this Question Time, to support the work of the Egyptian Government on Gaza, to deliver an unequivocal message to Israel and to encourage all back into negotiations, including Palestinians, without preconditions.

David Ward: The Secretary of State constantly confirms that the occupation of Palestinian land is illegal under international law. What does he think the difference is in the mind of the Israeli Government between something lawful and something unlawful but unenforced by the international community? What is the difference?

William Hague: I think the hon. Gentleman would have to direct that question to the Israeli Government. We are clear that the settlements are illegal and on occupied land, but we are also clear, as we have discussed in this House several times over the past few weeks, that we will resolve that only through a successful negotiation. I have not heard anybody argue that there is any other way to resolve it other than Israelis and Palestinians succeeding in negotiation together. We must encourage that process, which of course constrains us in many other things that people advocate that we do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, including some who have been trying hard, but I am afraid that demand has massively exceeded supply today. I hope that that is understood.

Points of Order

Mark Reckless: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Home Secretary met the deadline for appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of Abu Qatada. She also wrote to me that rather than seeking to uphold the test confirmed by our own highest court, under which she could deport Qatada:
	“A decision was taken to adopt the test laid down in January by the Strasbourg court, essentially because we considered the domestic courts were bound to follow it”.
	Is it not the duty of Ministers to uphold the law as passed by this House and interpreted by our highest court rather than to surrender to Strasbourg?

Mr Speaker: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s extreme strength of feeling on this matter, I do not see a point of order there. I also think he is in some danger of veering or trending into areas that are essentially sub judice and I would urge him to be cautious about that. I know that he will find other ways in which to pursue his concerns on this matter and I am sure that will happen.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said that due to the limitations of time a number of Members could not be called and we all understand that. We cannot change time. You will have heard the strength of feeling, however, on the Palestinian/Israeli issue that was expressed from Members on both sides of the House about what the Israelis intend to do, which is totally unacceptable. Will there be an opportunity before the Christmas recess to raise that question, as the next Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions will take place well into next year?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There are various possibilities. First, there is the business question on Thursday morning, at which Members can seek an assurance from the Leader of the House about debating time before Christmas. Secondly, it is open to any hon. Member to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate in short order. Thirdly, there are other mechanisms open to Members if they seek to engage Ministers in further exchanges on such matters. I say that without prejudice, but I hope that it is a helpful reply to the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly conscious of his strength of feeling and a wider sense of it within the House.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23 )

Richard Bacon: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998; and for connected purposes.
	The Human Rights Act 1998 gives effect in UK law to the rights and freedoms under the European convention on human rights and makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a convention right. Under section 2 of the Act, a court or tribunal in the UK determining a question that has arisen in connection with a convention right must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. Under section 3, primary and subordinate legislation must, so far as it is possible to do so, be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the convention rights. This applies to any primary and subordinate legislation whenever it was enacted.
	Section 3 also states that this provision does not affect the validity of any incompatible legislation, although it is also true under section 6 that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. As we have seen, the view of successive Governments over the years has been that when a UK law is found to be incompatible with the European convention, it is the UK law that gives way to secure compliance with the convention.
	Indeed, the Human Rights Act conveniently supplies a fast-track procedure to facilitate this happening quickly. Under section 10, a Minister of the Crown may make such amendments to primary legislation as are considered necessary to enable the incompatibility to be removed by the simple expedient of making an order. In effect, because the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations, a supranational court can impose its will against ours. In my view this is fundamentally undemocratic.
	However, there is no point in belonging to a club if one is not prepared to obey its rules. The solution is therefore not to defy judgments of the Court, but rather to remove the power of the Court over us. The fundamental point is that one cannot alter the political nature of a decision by changing the location where the decision is made. Judges do not have access to a tablet of stone not available to the rest of us which enables them to discern what our people need better than we can possibly do as their elected, fallible, corrigible representatives. There is no set of values that are so universally agreed that we can appeal to them as a useful final arbiter. In the end they will always be shown up as either uselessly vague or controversially specific. Questions of major social policy, whether on abortion, capital punishment, the right to bear firearms or workers rights, should ultimately be decided by elected representatives and not by unelected judges.
	Let us take the recent example of prisoner voting. The view of the Court is that, although the Council of Europe member states have a margin of appreciation in deciding how far prisoners should be enfranchised, a complete ban on voting was outside that margin. The fact that we do not have a blanket ban on prisoners
	voting does not seem to have troubled the Court, even though the Attorney-General went out of his way to point this out in person when he appeared before the Court. There are several categories of prisoner who have the vote now—prisoners who are on remand, prisoners who are sentenced but not convicted, and prisoners who are in prison for defaulting on fines. But the Court is in effect saying, “Sorry, we don’t like your arrangements. We prefer ours.”
	Although I personally object to the idea of prisoners having the vote, my much more fundamental objection is to the idea that a court sitting overseas, composed of judges from among other countries Latvia, Liechtenstein and Azerbaijan, however fine they may be as people, should have more say over what laws should apply in the United Kingdom than our constituents do through their elected Members of Parliament. Some may say that that is what the UK signed up to, to which I would only reply, “Precisely.” That is why we need to repeal the Human Rights Act and resile from the convention.
	The idea that that would make us a pariah state is simply nonsense. For example, Canada is a member of the Organisation of American States, the equivalent of the Council of Europe for the Americas, but has not signed up to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, without becoming in any sense a pariah state.
	Some might say that that would raise all kinds of other legal problems, that everything from the United Nations convention against torture to the Good Friday agreement is predicated upon our membership of the European convention so that it would be impossibly difficult to change things. I do not find that persuasive. It was not that many years ago that people said that a Bill of Rights of any kind would be impossible in the United Kingdom because of parliamentary sovereignty. The truth is that if one wants to do something badly enough, one can find a way to do it, and to do it legally—that is precisely what one keeps clever lawyers for. Goodness, if one wants something badly enough, it turns out one can even go to war in defiance of both world opinion and international law and find a lawyer to say that it is perfectly lawful.
	I particularly commend the second Kingsland memorial lecture, given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is a sponsor of the Bill, in which he set out the argument at much greater length. His central point, with which I agree, is that on prisoner voting, as on so much else, we should not defy the ECHR, but resile from it altogether.
	I will end by reflecting on the comment of Judge Learned Hand:
	“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it… What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few”.
	In my view, our best check is not unelected judges, but the spirit of liberty in the hearts of the elected representatives in this House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful for the opportunity to respond to the motion. The Human Rights Act is a statute that rarely receives a good word and is subject to more than its fair share of the bad, yet it is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by the previous Labour Government. Here I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who was instrumental in the formulation and implementation of the policy and remains one of the most coherent voices on the role and, crucially, limitations of the Act. I am also incredibly grateful to him for his advice in preparing for this speech; he has been generous with his time and counsel.
	Despite what some newspapers and, it appears, some Government Members claim, the Human Rights Act is not some badly drafted and hastily rushed piece of legislation, a Dangerous Dogs Act for civil liberties. Rather, the opposite is true. The legislation benefited from three years of development in the mid-’90s while Labour was in opposition, on a cross-party basis and with the assistance of the Liberal Democrats. It was further improved by careful consideration in this Chamber and the other place.
	The Act is noticeable as a piece of legislation by the very fact that, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and Lord Irvine are rightly known as its midwives, its DNA draws from a far wider and deeper genetic pool. That is an incredible strength of the Act and undoubtedly one of the reasons why it has not been seriously challenged in the 14 years since it received Royal Assent.
	It is interesting that in the eight years since Michael Howard first declared that the Tories wanted to repeal the Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, not one significant step of progress has been made by the Conservative party in developing a coherent alternative. That is testament to those parliamentary draftsmen working at the end of the last century.
	The Act itself can be seen as a key plank of the constitutional framework built by the Labour Government alongside devolution. It sets out in clear and unambiguous language those human rights that our nation holds to be dear and that we rightly regard as vital in any modern free society: the right to life; the prohibition of torture, slavery and forced labour; the right to liberty, security and a fair trial; no punishment without law; the right to respect for family and private life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of speech; the right to marry; the freedom of assembly and association; and the prohibition of discrimination.
	The Act also does something profoundly important for our democratic system—it writes into law the supremacy of Parliament over the courts and the Executive. It places limitations on how far the Executive can interpret their powers without the consent of Parliament. In essence, it requires the Executive to seek and obtain the agreement of Parliament before they may implement new policies. It is therefore no surprise that many Secretaries of State on both sides of the House have expressed irritation at the Act or bridled at the limitations imposed on their authority. Equally, though, the Act is clear that it does not prevent a Secretary of State from ultimately achieving their goal, provided that the Government are
	prepared to seek parliamentary approval through legislation; it merely prevents a Government from unilaterally setting a new policy without the endorsement of the people through their elected representatives or without due regard for the law. It is bizarre that in our modern democratic system some politicians, particularly one as well regarded as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), would seriously propose to repeal this safeguard.
	Moreover, the Act places limitations on the power of the courts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was careful in his drafting so that it merely requires that the legislature should be “mindful of”, not “bound by”, court decisions. The Act has provision for Parliament to set aside court rulings if it sees fit. For example, in 2005 British courts, through the Law Lords, ruled that it was inhumane and degrading to deny some asylum seekers the right to earn a wage to support themselves and simultaneously deny them the right to receive any benefits from the state—in effect, to place them in destitution without any support apart from charities and churches. As my right hon. Friend has said, this was one of those decisions of our courts which could be classed as inconvenient to the Executive, and I recall that it caused quite a stir at the time. However, if we, as the then Executive, had decided to ask Parliament to pass primary legislation that said in plain, unambiguous terms that certain categories of asylum seeker were indeed to be rendered destitute, and Parliament had agreed, that would have been it—the end of the matter—as far as the British courts were concerned.
	Some argue, legitimately, that Parliament should not seek to overturn court decisions. Others argue, erroneously, that in the United States the Supreme Court is indeed supreme and the defender of its constitution. However, the US Congress, with the support of states and the White House, may overturn the Supreme Court through constitutional amendments, as has already happened 27 times in that nation’s history.
	On prisoner voting, which the hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned, the Human Rights Act is perfectly compatible with the principled decision taken by this House. The House voted—and voted overwhelmingly—to remove from convicted prisoners the right to vote in elections, and thus they have no recourse under the Act. Our membership of the European convention on human rights has forced this issue to the European courts. Indeed, another strength of the Act is that it has provided a mechanism whereby British courts may seek to influence the working of the European courts.
	As we have seen again today, one of the greatest challenges that the Act must constantly overcome is urban myths and misconceptions. No one could forget the powerful speech delivered by the current Home Secretary to last year’s Conservative party conference when she said:
	“We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act...about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat.”
	Unfortunately for the Home Secretary, whoever wrote her speech had in fact made it up. In the case of the cat, it appears that the Home Office lost a reconsideration case after the initial verdict was successfully appealed
	because it failed to meet the requirements set out in the UK Border Agency guidelines, not because of the Human Rights Act. So the hon. Gentleman might have been better served by introducing a human rights education Bill which would involve mandatory attendance by the Cabinet.
	In the final analysis, the single strongest argument against repeal is that this is the decade in which we hope to welcome more countries, particularly our neighbours to the east of Europe and Asia, and to the south of Europe, into the family of democratic, civilised nations. To turn our back on, tear up and cast aside the Act that enshrines in law the fundamental human rights that we ask others to respect would remove the legitimacy of our position. How can we ask developing countries—the new democracies—to respect human rights when we seek to remove them from our statute book? I urge the House to reject this Bill.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
	The House divided:
	Ayes 72, Noes 195.

Question accordingly negatived.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in Public Bill Committee.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Opposition Front Bencher to move new clause 2, I should tell the House that I have revised my provisional selection of amendments and moved amendments 29 to 31 and amendment 33, tabled by Dr Eilidh Whiteford, to the third group from the first group. A revised list will be circulated shortly. I hope that that information is helpful, not only to the hon. Lady, but, indeed, to the House.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Member communications

‘(1) Scheme regulations for a scheme under section 1 shall provide for the provision of annual benefit statements to all members of the scheme.
	(2) Benefit statements under subsection 1 shall show the following information—
	(a) the member’s pension benefits earned to date;
	(b) the projected annual pension and lump sum payments if the member retires at his normal pension age; and
	(c) the member’s and employer’s current contribution rates.’.—(Chris Leslie.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 3—Fair deal—
	‘A member of a public service pension scheme is entitled to remain an active member of that scheme following—
	(a) the compulsory transfer of his contract of employment to an independent contractor; and
	(b) any subsequent compulsory transfer of his contract of employment.’.
	Amendment 11,in clause 3, page2,line25, at end insert—
	‘(5A) This Act shall not apply to scheme regulations relating to local government workers in Scotland unless the Scottish Parliament approves its application.’.
	Amendment 12, in clause 7,page4,line29, at end insert—
	‘(3A) A scheme under section 1 which replaces a final salary scheme may only be established as a career average revalued earnings scheme or a defined benefits scheme of such other description as Treasury regulations may specify.’.
	Amendment 4, in clause 12,page8,line9, after ‘scheme manager’, insert ‘and employee representatives’.
	Amendment 19, in clause 16,page9,line36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	‘(1) New scheme regulations made under section 1 and 3 shall replace existing schemes’ current regulations and shall take effect on the amendment date.
	(1A) Following the implementation of new scheme regulations under subsection (1), benefits shall only be provided in accordance with those new regulations.’.
	Amendment 20, page10,line5, leave out ‘closing’ and insert ‘amendment’.
	Amendment 21, page10,line6, leave out ‘1 April’ and insert ‘2 April’.
	Amendment 32, page10,line7, after ‘scheme,’, insert—
	‘(aa) 1 April 2016 for a Scottish scheme,’.
	Amendment 22, page10,line8, leave out ‘5 April’ and insert ‘6 April’.
	Amendment 23, page10,line10, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert ‘(1A)’.
	Amendment 24, page10,line21, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert ‘(1A)’.
	Amendment 25, page10,line23, leave out ‘closing’ and insert ‘amendment’.
	Amendment 26,in clause 16, page10,line27, at end insert ‘regulations’.
	Amendment 27, page10,line28, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert ‘(1A)’.
	Amendment 28, page10,line28, leave out from ‘benefits’ to ‘includes’.
	Government amendment 35
	Amendment 7,in clause 28, page15,line12, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
	Amendment 8, page15,line12, after ‘new’, insert ‘defined benefit’.
	Government amendments 36 to 39.

Christopher Leslie: Having spent a considerable number of weeks serving on the Bill Committee, I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to press the Government on questions that remain unanswered and largely unaddressed. Considerable changes are being made to many of the public service pension schemes as a result of Lord Hutton’s report on the future shape of those schemes. The report was largely welcomed throughout the House and that has contributed greatly to the improvement of the reforms. However, a number of the report’s aspects have not been adopted in full by the Government in this Bill, and we are concerned about that.
	New clause 2, the first in a considerable group of suggested changes specifically to pension schemes, would implement recommendation 18 on page 132 of the Hutton report that
	“public service pension schemes should issue regular benefit statements to active scheme members, at least annually and without being requested”.
	At present, defined benefit public service schemes are obliged to provide such information only if they are requested to do so. That limited obligation is set out in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, but normal occupational pension schemes that do not have an arrangement for either a final salary or career average payment at the end of the scheme are obviously a different state of affairs from defined contribution schemes. New clause 2 would simply implement Lord Hutton’s recommendation and ensure that public service workers have a better understanding of the benefits that they have accumulated to date and what they stand to receive if they continue working until their normal retirement age.
	We had a very healthy debate on this matter in Committee, where the exchange of views did not follow the usual to-ing and fro-ing of partisan speechmaking.
	A number of Members agreed that it would be very healthy if we improved the information and transparency for employees to enable them to make more informed decisions in planning for their savings and their financial future. For example, members of the schemes would be better able to judge whether they were saving enough for their retirement. The new clause is therefore compatible with the aim of reducing people’s need for state benefits in retirement—something that many Members across the House want to achieve.
	When we tabled a similar amendment in Committee, it gained quite a degree of vocal support. The hon. Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who are in the Chamber today, helpfully pressed the Minister to resist his usual logic, which says in big block capital letters, “This is an Opposition amendment; thou shalt resist this devious device by Labour Members to do something nasty in the legislation.” That was not our intention. We actually wanted to implement Lord Hutton’s recommendation and bring defined benefit schemes into the modern age, especially in respect of communicating more regularly and effectively with scheme members. I live in hope that those hon. Gentlemen will chip in and offer their support again, because surely the goal of improving people’s understanding of their pension and helping them to plan more effectively for their retirement should find favour on both sides of the House.

Mike Freer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will give way. In fact, I was just about the quote the hon. Gentleman. He said:
	“If we want people genuinely to prepare for their pensions, we need to give them the maximum amount of information. Just suggesting that it is good practice without putting in place any requirement is the wrong thing to do.”––[Official Report, P ublic  Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 455.]
	It gives me great pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mike Freer: I am flattered that the shadow Minister should pay such attention to my words. Does he agree that it is rather perverse that when taking out a pension, particularly a private pension, a customer has to read reams of documentation about the risks, the forecasts, the potential growth rates and what might or might not happen, but when one has a public service pension, that level of detail is not provided and, most importantly, the annual statement provides scant information, even if it is requested?

Christopher Leslie: That is an anachronism that has to change. The hon. Gentleman is correct that just because somebody is in a public service scheme or a defined benefit scheme does not mean that they should not think through carefully what the financial consequences will be for them on retirement. This Bill is the perfect opportunity to take that small but significant step forward.
	In Committee, the Minister initially went into rebuttal mode and said that we could not have the new clause for a number of reasons. At first, he said that there were different ways of providing information to members of the scheme, that we did not want to be too prescriptive and that legislation was not necessary. However, the new
	clause does not prescribe the manner in which the information is provided; it would merely ensure that annual statements were provided in some form.
	The Minister’s other objection in Committee was that defined benefit schemes in the private sector are not obliged to provide annual statements, so it would not be right for public sector schemes to do so. However, Government Members again disagreed. I cannot do better than to quote again the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green:
	“We have a pensions problem in this country, and saying that private sector schemes are not required to provide statements—though many do…—is not a good enough reason for not requiring public sector schemes to provide them.”––[Official Report, P ublic  Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 455.]
	Amen to that excellent argument. The Minister said at the time that he would consider the issue further.
	Last week, I wrote to the Minister saying that it was our intention to table new clause 2. I rather hoped that he would table his own variant. Usually, there are accusations that the Opposition have not thought through the drafting of the phraseology of an amendment and there is some technical reason why it cannot be accepted. However, we have offered the Minister the chance to correct that. It is of great regret that the Minister did not come forward with his own new clause. Perhaps I should be more optimistic and assume that that means that the Minister will stand up and accept new clause 2 straight away. That would be fantastic.
	It is worth noting that all defined contribution pension schemes are required by the 1996 occupational pension schemes regulations to provide much more detailed statements than those proposed in the new clause. There is therefore no reason to think that there would be any problem in implementing the arrangements.
	It would be helpful if the Minister made this change. If he wants to do it in the House of Lords when the Bill gets down there, we could probably accept that, but I think that most Members would accept the change.

Richard Fuller: In Committee, we also talked about the risk of people with public sector pensions making the perverse decision not to contribute to their pension because they feel that the contribution rate is going up significantly, missing the fact that a significant contribution is being made to their pension scheme by the taxpayer. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the new clause would assist members of public sector pension schemes in identifying what a large contribution the taxpayer is making, and therefore help to reduce the number of people who take the irrational step of opting out of the pension scheme?

Christopher Leslie: Even though the quality of the scheme has been eroded, as we saw with the unilateral imposition of the average 3% increase in employee contributions—that might even have been before Lord Hutton reported—they are still good defined benefit schemes and we encourage public sector members to stay in them. We have debated our concerns elsewhere over whether the viability of the schemes will be jeopardised by employees being deterred from joining or deciding to opt out. However, we encourage members to stay in the schemes. Unfortunately, the 3% additional contribution is not part of this legislation,
	so it would be outwith the scope of the Bill to table amendments on that or to debate it. That is a great shame.
	It is important that annual benefit statements include not only the employee’s contribution, but the employer’s contribution, as set out in the new clause. If the defined benefit schemes are good, there is no reason not to have that level of clarity and transparency. I have no problem with accepting that that should be part of the information that is given to scheme members. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
	New clause 3 is one of the most important proposals in this group. The Government promised to implement what is known as the new fair deal, which is one of the most important aspects of the agreement that was reached in the negotiations between the employee side and Government or employer side of the scheme. The new fair deal would ensure that all public service workers who were compulsorily transferred to an independent contractor, be it a private company, a charity or another third sector body, would be entitled to remain an active member of their public service pension scheme. That is a basic requirement and it was a core part of the agreement. We were glad that the Government committed to it.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed the Government’s commitment to the new fair deal in a written statement in July, which stated that
	“the Government have reviewed the fair deal policy and agreed to maintain the overall approach, but deliver this by offering access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff. When implemented, this means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from the public service under TUPE, including subsequent TUPE transfers, to independent providers of public services will retain membership of their current employer’s pension arrangements.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 54WS.]
	That is an improvement on the current fair deal arrangements, which ensure that outsourced staff receive broadly comparable arrangements to those under the public service schemes. The Government’s promise to implement the new fair deal was central to the rationale and at the heart of why many public service workers agreed to support the new proposed pensions reform, even though aspects of it were detrimental to them.

Sheila Gilmore: A few months ago in the Open Public Services White Paper, the Government expressed enthusiasm for transferring services to voluntary organisations and social enterprise—we have not heard so much about that recently. If that is to work, however, is it not particularly important to have the proposed provision on pensions?

Christopher Leslie: Many public service workers whose services have been transferred to independent providers, whether they have been outsourced, find themselves in the voluntary sector or wherever, still want to ensure that their deferred wages—that is what pensions are—will be protected in a particular way. That was a positive development in the negotiations, but to what extent has such protection found its way into the Bill? That is why the Opposition are concerned and have tabled new clause 3.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman will know that the fair deal arrangements introduced in 1999 by the Labour Government were not statutory. Why was he happy to support and serve in a Government who had a non-statutory approach to the fair deal, but in opposition he seeks to make that approach statutory?

Christopher Leslie: The situation now is different because of the level of trust on which public service employees feel tested when looking at significant changes by the Government. Employee contributions were unilaterally increased by 3% without consultation or discussion—that was simply imposed, even though Lord Hutton was putting measures through. The evaluation arrangement was unilaterally changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. A typical public service employee must have said, “Hold on a minute. Are we supposed to just take this on faith? We are glad that the Government are in negotiations, but as we know, Ministers are here today and gone tomorrow.” In no way do I cast aspersion on the Economic Secretary who I am sure will remain on the Front Bench in days to come. However, we cannot simply rely on statements from particular Ministers at a particular point in time.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about trust, which is critical following the experience of many public service workers and Government decisions on pensions. Does he not underplay the importance of the fair deal? He described it as a positive development in the negotiations, but for many public service workers and their unions it was not just a positive development but a deal maker that allowed them to accept a package which, as he said, was detrimental in other areas. It was important that people took that provision as a clear guarantee, but doubt has now been cast on it, which underlines the importance of including it in the Bill and therefore the importance of new clause 3.

Christopher Leslie: My right hon. Friend is correct. When we get a sense of the Government pulling the odd thread here or there or watering down elements of the provision—if I may mix my metaphors—it is no wonder that people start to question whether the words of Ministers at a particular point in time will carry through into what should be a 25-year commitment as set out in legislation. The provision was part of those negotiations but it has not found its way into the Bill.
	Even more worryingly, the Economic Secretary made some peculiar statements in Committee about something that we thought was a done deal. He said:
	“it is important that we consider in full the views of all stakeholders, including of course those who will be affected, through further consultation before making a final decision on the issue. It would therefore be inappropriate to include the fair deal policy in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 459.]
	It is as though negotiations had not been completed or decisions reached. Indeed, it sounded very much as if the Government were reneging on their commitment.
	The Government need to lay to rest any suggestion that they are going back on their promise, and the only way to do that is to accept new clause 3. Failure to do so
	risks reopening debates and potential disputes with public service workers who will—justifiably—feel they have been misled.

John McDonnell: Part of the concern and need to write such provisions into the Bill comes from the fact that no one predicted clause 3. It has been described as a Henry VIII clause, as it gives sweeping powers to Ministers to legislate on schemes through statutory instruments or even retrospectively.

Christopher Leslie: Indeed; we will debate some of the worst aspects of clause 3 later. It feels as though when writing the Bill Ministers did not consider it as enshrining an arrangement involving give and take on both sides. They have included certain things to the advantage of the employer, but there are scant—if any—safeguards of sufficiency and longevity for the employee, and that is causing anxiety.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is making an important argument in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). It is not just that the Bill includes certain things that advantage employers; the measures are principally to the advantage of the Treasury, which is given the whip hand and ultimate say over schemes that should be run by their members and managers accountable to them.
	My hon. Friend quoted the Economic Secretary in Committee. When the Minister rises to his feet, is it not important that he explain the discrepancy between what he said in Committee and what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said to this House in December last year? He said:
	“Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1203.]
	There is a big difference between those two statements and the Economic Secretary needs to explain himself on that point.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) replies, let me say that although I have indulged the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on this occasion I hope he will not repeat such a long intervention. I do not want him to induce the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) into following bad habits. That would be a very undesirable state of affairs.

Christopher Leslie: It may be a bad habit but it was a jolly good intervention. I do not often do this, but I commend my right hon. Friend for quoting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. What is the difference between the Chief Secretary and the Economic Secretary? Well, one is a Liberal Democrat and the other a Conservative. However, my right hon. Friend should take that with a pinch of salt, as I too have a quote from the Chief Secretary, who said that
	“establishing a relationship of trust and confidence between the Government and public service workers is critical to the success of these reforms.”
	How long will this coalition Government persist? What we need is not just a commitment from a Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury whose parliamentary and ministerial career might not endure. We need to know what would happen should there be the dreadful set of circumstances of a Conservative majority Administration. Would a promise on the new fair deal, given only verbally by Ministers, endure in such circumstances?
	Given the Minister’s trajectory and career momentum, I want to hear a commitment from him to the new fair deal on behalf of the Conservative party. That might mean something, although I would still prefer to see it in the Bill. It would be invidious for the Government to speak against new clause 3, let alone vote against it if we decided to test the opinion of the House. I am conscious of the time so I will move on.
	Amendment 11 relates to issues of local government workers in Scotland and would exclude the Scottish local government pension scheme from the Bill, unless agreed to by the Scottish Parliament. Primary legislation on public service pension schemes has always been reserved to the UK Parliament. Scottish Ministers have had responsibility for regulations for public service schemes but those have been subject to Treasury approval and have tended to mirror arrangements for England and Wales. The exception is the Scottish local government pension scheme, which is a funded scheme that has not been subject to Treasury approval in the past. The Bill extends certain prescriptions to the design of the Scottish local government pension scheme that, in practice, have previously been left to Scottish Ministers to negotiate and decide—most importantly, they negotiated and decided on normal pension age; that benefits should be based on career-average revalued earnings and not final salary; on the cost cap, as it is known; and on rules for governance and fund valuations.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Scottish Government can find the ways and means to fund their pensions, they should be free from penalties from the Treasury at Westminster?

Christopher Leslie: That comes down to how the legislation is drafted. There are different financial consequences for local government pension schemes than for other public service pension schemes. That is why we need clarity in the legislation. I am conscious that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have argued that there is no need for a legislative consent motion to cover the matter because, in theory, the UK Parliament always had primary legislative power over the local government pension scheme in Scotland but has hitherto chosen not to use it. The Government in Scotland have been quick to accept the UK’s proposals, which is unusual, because they normally argue that more power should sit with Holyrood. The movement of the regulation-making powers means that the Scottish Government will not need to grapple with difficult decisions on the reform of certain pensions, but the Opposition feel it would be better for Members of the Scottish Parliament to have an opportunity to scrutinise and debate the application of the legislation to the local government pension scheme in Scotland. Amendment 11 to clause 3
	would mean that the Bill would not apply to the local government pension scheme in Scotland unless that is explicitly approved by the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and others have tabled parallel amendments—I gather they are in the third group, so we will probably return to this debate later.
	Amendment 12, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), relates to another key Government promise made to public service workers. It seeks to enshrine in the legislation another Government promise made to public service workers—the Government promised that their final salary schemes would be replaced with career-average revalued earnings schemes. That would ensure that public service workers continue to receive a defined benefit pension.
	The Bill does not explicitly honour that promise, and clause 7 provides that schemes created under the Bill can be defined benefit or defined contribution schemes, or any scheme of any other description. That is fundamental to the arguments on the Bill, but it is also fundamental to the arguments that Hutton made and the agreements that were reached. All schemes were supposed to be succeeded by career-average defined benefit schemes. In some cases, the Government might like to continue small defined contribution schemes, but the amendment would not affect those; it would apply only to final salary schemes and ensure that they are replaced with another defined benefit arrangement. The amendment therefore simply seeks to put the Government’s promise to public service workers on a statutory footing.
	A similar amendment was opposed in Committee, but the reasons given by the Minister were concerning. He claimed that the Government intended to replace the final salary schemes with career-average schemes, but that “the flexibility embedded in” the Bill
	“could be helpful to scheme members in future.”
	He added that
	“it would not be appropriate for this Government to tie the hands of future generations and pension scheme members who might decide that, subject to the protection offered by the enhanced consultation and reporting obligations of clause 20, defined benefit schemes were no longer the most appropriate for public service workers.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 291-292.]
	That is not the first time we have heard the Minister’s bizarre argument that legislation could bind the hands of future Governments. No Government can bind the hands of their successors in that way. Unless the Minister has an insight into changes in the democratic process of which we are unaware, that remains absolutely the case.
	Therefore, the argument that clause 7 provides welcome flexibility to scheme members now or in future is, in the Opposition’s view, potentially misleading. In the rare circumstances that a defined contribution scheme is better than the defined benefit one, and scheme members and the Government wish to change schemes to defined contributions schemes, clauses 19 and 20 allow that to happen. Clause 7 provides no flexibility that does not exist in clauses 19 and 20. If we do not make the amendment, we allow the Government to go back on their promises. We seek to keep them to their word on those arrangements.
	I know that many hon. Members wish to speak to proposals in this large group, so I shall make my final point on the question of closing local government pension schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), among others, have had extensive experience of local government schemes. In Committee, there was anxiety that the Bill mentions closing existing LGPS schemes and beginning new ones. The problem with closing schemes is that there can be unintended and adverse consequences. We heard in Committee about triggering debts which might need to be crystallised on closure. Of course, not just big local authorities but small academies, charities and others are members of such schemes. They might find that they suddenly need to shell out one great lump of money simply because an existing scheme closes and the deficit needs to be dealt with there and then.
	The Minister assured us that regulatory provisions did not require such crystallisation, and that there could be protections. The Opposition are not massively happy with that, but even if we accept the Minister’s word that closure does not mean closure, thousands of employers in the local government pension fund have individual admission agreements governing the terms of their participation—the agreements are not necessarily in a standard form, meaning that there could be thousands of different admissions contracts for the schemes. It is likely that at least some of the agreements will set out various powers for local authorities in the event of closure, including the power to collect a debt from the employer equal to its share of the scheme’s deficit. That would put a massive strain on participating employers and could put some of them out of business.
	The Minister gave assurances on some of those points in Committee, but he missed the problem that the Bill allows local authorities to close their funds. The Government cannot prevent them from doing so under the Bill. The problem of triggering debts therefore remains substantive. There is also the question of whether closure means closure or continuing a scheme. The Opposition believe that a different approach is needed and that the Bill needs better drafting, which is why we have tabled amendments 20 to 28. We are not trying to add costs to the public purse and are keeping the Government’s proposals, but we are saying that it would be better to amend an existing scheme rather than to close and reopen it. They are in some ways technical proposals, but it would be better to err on the side of caution and provide that new regulations can amend scheme rules to ensure that all future benefits are accrued according to the provisions of the Bill and negotiated arrangements.
	Those are essentially my comments on the Opposition’s proposals. My hon. Friends and others have tabled amendments in this group, but I shall let them make the case for them.

Nick Gibb: I rise to speak briefly on Opposition new clause 3, which is on fair deal arrangements. Hon. Members will be aware that fair deal arrangements were originally addressed by Lord Hutton in his interim report in October 2010. Hutton was concerned that the arrangements at that time created barriers to the plurality of public service provision. He said:
	“At present, when employees are transferred to non-public service bodies, the organisation they move to is required to ensure that there is ‘broadly comparable’ pension provision for future service, through the Fair Deal provisions…This arrangement has maintained the level of pension provision for those compulsorily transferred out of the public sector. However…this can make it harder for private sector and third sector organisations to provide public services because providing a ‘broadly comparable’ defined benefit pension scheme can be significantly more expensive and risky for private sector organisations than for public sector employers.”
	That was the starting point of the debate. In box 1.A—a shaded box, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) will be intrigued to know—Lord Hutton concluded:
	“Ultimately, it is for the Government to consider carefully the best way of moving forward with Fair Deal in a way that delivers its wider objective of encouraging a broader range of public service providers while remaining consistent with good employment practices.”

Andy Sawford: My principal concern, fresh from the doorsteps of Corby, is for the many individual members of the pension scheme. In his extensive piece of work, Lord Hutton considered the future of public service reform and the relationships between the public and private sector. What I am most concerned about in the debate today and in supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East on the fair deal, is giving an assurance to those individuals in Corby and East Northamptonshire—cleaners and nurses and so on—that the goalposts will not be constantly shifted away from what they expect from their pension. From the 3p in the pound change to the RPI to CPI change, they feel buffeted by huge changes that are really affecting them at the moment. That is why we need the assurance in the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on his election to the House. His intervention indicates the seriousness with which he takes his new role. I am grateful for that and I take his point. All of us on the Government Benches want to ensure that we have sustainable, good-quality defined benefit pensions in the public sector, but to achieve that there has to be major reform to public service pensions for a raft of reasons to do with longevity, cost, poor performance of the stock market in the past 12 years and tax changes that occurred in 1997. For all those reasons, if we are to have good-quality, defined benefit pensions for public service employees, there have to be major reforms.
	The Government have been clear, open and transparent in the negotiating process, and an ample number of documents are circulating that set out precisely the conclusion to the negotiations, not least the proposed final agreements. The idea that without changing primary legislation the Government can somehow slip through major changes to the quality of benefits to the employees, which the hon. Gentleman is talking about, is just not in the real world. All Governments have to behave reasonably, and this Government are no different from any other. Not only have they behaved reasonably in these negotiations, but, I believe, they have given rise to high-quality public service pension arrangements that offer benefits way beyond the arrangements in the private sector. That is a sign that the Government recognise the important contribution that public sector employees make to our society.
	I point the hon. Gentleman to the consultation on the new deal that took place between March and June 2011. That was a broad consultation, to which there were more than 100 responses. In July this year, in a written ministerial statement, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated:
	“the Government have reviewed the fair deal policy and agreed to maintain the overall approach, but deliver this by offering access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff…this means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from the public service under TUPE…to independent providers of public services will retain membership of their current employer’s pension arrangements.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 54WS.]
	That is on the record and should provide the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House with the assurance they need.

Christopher Leslie: We hear what the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, but can the hon. Gentleman, as a Conservative MP, give us a guarantee that that would also be the case under a future Conservative Government?

Nick Gibb: Alas, I no longer speak on behalf of the Government, but that is a commitment given by Ministers of this coalition Government. The hon. Gentleman is trying to create a division between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats in our approach to public service pension reform, and there is no such division. There is no such difference in attitude between the two parties on public service reform.

John Healey: I rise to support the hon. Gentleman. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, the House and the public have a right to take at face value the words of a Chief Secretary—a Chief Secretary is a Chief Secretary is a Chief Secretary. That is a statement of Government policy and of coalition Government intent. Therefore, I think the onus is not on the hon. Gentleman, but on the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to explain why his statement is different from the Chief Secretary’s statement.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and to the Chief Secretary and I did not find any difference. My hon. Friend was addressing whether particular matters should be in primary legislation; the Chief Secretary was setting out the case for the policy.
	On teachers’ pensions, there was anxiety that the current arrangements, under which teachers in the independent sector can be members of the teachers’ pension scheme if their employer signs up to the scheme, might be put in jeopardy by the words of Lord Hutton’s interim report, so the Chief Secretary’s statement was welcome news to teachers. Paragraph 8 of the proposed final agreement states:
	“the Government agrees to retain Fair Deal provision and extend access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff. This means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from maintained schools (including academies)…under TUPE…will…be able to retain membership of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme when transferred.”
	That is welcome news. The agreement goes on to state that
	“The Government’s decision on Fair deal means that…independent schools which already have access to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme
	will continue to do so (for existing and new teachers); and new teachers and independent schools will continue to be able to join the scheme under the existing qualifying criteria.”
	When we debated the issue in Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham East conceded that the new fair deal
	“is an improvement on the current fair deal arrangements”—
	but, as he has just now, he complained that
	“the promise does not appear in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Public Services Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 458.]
	He will be aware, however, that the fair deal arrangements were non-statutory when they were introduced in 1999, and that they remained non-statutory when they were revised in 2004. Notwithstanding the fact that the new fair deal arrangements are an improvement on the old ones, if it is good enough for a Labour Government for the policy to be non-statutory, it ought to be good enough for the hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in Committee, the recently published Government response to the fair deal consultation included draft guidance setting out how the new policy would work in practice. Given all the public statements by my hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary and by the published guidance and consultation documents, the hon. Gentleman should be assured by the commitments given.

Christopher Leslie: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the sense of anxiety that many public sector employees feel? Their trust was shattered because of the unilateral decisions on RPI to CPI and the 3%. They are saying, “Don’t we need more safeguards?” Can he understand why they would want safeguards now that might not have been necessary in the past?

Nick Gibb: Of course, that is an assertion by the hon. Gentleman. I do not recognise that crushing of confidence. What the Government had to do when they came into office was tackle a huge public sector deficit of £156 billion, and they have done that. As a consequence of the difficult decisions the Government have taken, the capital markets have been assured that the Government are getting the public finances under control. That itself should assure beneficiaries of public service pensions that the Government will put the public finances in a stable condition and so avoid the need for the sort of draconian changes to public service pensions being implemented in other European countries as they seek, rather belatedly, to tackle their public deficits.

Sheila Gilmore: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a comfort, given that, as far as we can see, the Government’s deficit reduction plans are failing and debt is rising? In the light of that, many public service workers might well expect another bite at the cherry.

Nick Gibb: I fear that we are straying slightly from new clause 3 and the group of amendments, but I believe that the Government’s economic strategy is right. It is a judgment call, but one that I believe has been proven right by the fact that the Government’s borrowing cost for 10-year bonds, as they seek to fund the deficit, which has been reduced by a quarter over the last two and a half years, is 1.8%. That is a tribute to the difficult
	judgments Treasury Ministers have made, and they should be given credit for their achievements. As a consequence, however, there have had to be increases in the contribution rates of active members of public service pension schemes. In addition, Lord Hutton believes that even if there was not a deficit, major reform of public service pensions would still be needed, if they are to be sustainable in the long run.
	The Government’s commitment to sustainable public finances is of more concrete value than a proposal from a party with a track record of undermining the public finances. Ultimately, in a pay-as-you-go public service pension scheme, the quality and assurance that members want will depend on the ability of the Government to maintain stable public finances.

John McDonnell: I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: amendments 4, 7 and 8.
	Throughout the progress of the Bill, I have tabled a series of amendments with a central thrust—the same one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—which is about trust. The amendments would ensure that at each stage and for each grouping, there would be full consultation with and the full involvement of representatives of employees and scheme members. I apologise: I should have declared an interest as a member of the local government pension scheme. Nevertheless, each amendment would address the issue of confidence and secure a recognition, as promised by the Government, that employees will be fully consulted and represented and kept fully informed of changes to their pension schemes, which has not been the case until now.
	It is worth remembering that the pension deal was not a deal for a large number of unions; for more than 1 million workers, it was imposed. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, the National Union of Teachers, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Prison Officers Association, the University and College Union and Unite did not agree to the deal or the heads of agreement; instead, the deal was imposed upon them. There is deep scepticism amongst workers, and if Government Members do not recognise that, they are not living in the real world, or encountering the same constituents I am, or receiving the letters I get from police officers, teachers and local government workers across the piece.
	Even organisations that signed up to the heads of the deal are now expressing concerns. The British Medical Association, whose briefing Members will have received, thought it had signed up to an assurance from the Government, which I remember being made, that there would be a 25-year guarantee of no change around a number of protected issues. The Government said:
	“This means that no changes to scheme design, benefits or contribution rates should be necessary for 25 years outside of the processes agreed for the cost cap. To give substance to this, the Government intends to include provisions on the face of the forthcoming Public Service Pensions Bill to ensure a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will also give a commitment to Parliament of no more reform for 25 years.”
	Yet clause 3, described in briefings by the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and others as a Henry VIII clause, gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of
	State to return to these issues, introduce further reforms and make fairly significant changes through statutory instruments, not primary legislation to be debated in the House. Consequently, there is a lack of confidence in the words of Ministers, particularly given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said, those words are contradictory, not just across Government, but within the same Department. It is extraordinary.
	Others also signed the deal. The RCN wrote to us explaining its concerns:
	“Clause 3(3) is a Henry VIII clause which enables the Government to amend the Act at a later date through the use of secondary legislation. The RCN is concerned that, as a result, the Bill gives powers to the UK Government to amend and make retrospective provisions to any other related legislation without sufficient member consultation or scrutiny by Parliament.”
	I also received a letter from Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which also signed up to the deal. She wrote:
	“As you may know, the ATL accepted the Government’s proposed final agreement on changes to the teachers pension scheme as the best that could be achieved through negotiations. We now find the Bill contains additional elements that go beyond what was agreed in March 2012 and believe that the proposed changes could adversely and unfairly affect the quality of education that the nation’s children receive in our schools.”

Andy Sawford: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among police officers highlighted last week in an excellent Westminster Hall debate led by our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)? Many police officers feel that the arrangements they have made for their later life and approach to retirement—for doing things such as helping their children to get into housing or paying their university fees—have been completely undermined by changes that have pulled the rug from under them right at the end of their working life, after they have made an incredible contribution to keeping our communities safe. It is those kinds of people we must think about today as we make these changes. As my hon. Friend says, we must give them much greater confidence and assurance.

John McDonnell: I fully concur with my hon. Friend. I received—perhaps he did too—an e-mail from Inspector Nick Smart, who wrote:
	“I am a serving police inspector in West Yorkshire of 17 years. I am about to see my life plans thrown into chaos with the proposed pension changes, with my retirement age extended by at least two years plus a 20% cut in my lump sum—about £40,000—and a significantly worse annual pension.”
	It is no wonder that people are demoralised and do not trust the Government. They thought there was at least a 25-year guarantee, but we now know that that is not the case, because the Government are giving themselves the power to change schemes at will in the future.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, will be aware of the indication that teachers will be asked to pay 50% of their contributions up until 2015, and they are not even safeguarded beyond 2015. Does he agree that, if the Government are not careful, they will create a breeding ground for discontent among teachers?

John McDonnell: Exactly, but I think it is across the piece. Whether or not we agreed with the last negotiations, or whether they were imposed or signed up to, at least some people felt there was some security for the future.
	People are becoming demoralised, which is why it is important that we insert into the Bill provisions for full consultation and agreement with organisations representing employees and for full openness and transparency. That is why new clause 3, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, is critical. As has been said, at least in the private sector there is full display and transparency in what people sign up to, but there is no display or transparency in the public sector, particularly now that the Government have given themselves these powers.

Angus MacNeil: Given the comments about the police pension scheme, I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands the wish of the Scottish Police Federation that police pensions be controlled independently in Scotland. For England and Wales, however, does he feel that in future Governments should act more morally in relation to the terms of agreements that were made years before and under which police officers expect to retire, while also understanding, of course, that in Scotland they want clear of the system?

John McDonnell: I can fully understand the feelings of police officers in Scotland, as I can those of officers across England and Wales. People now just want safety and security in their pensions, which are theirs—they have paid for them and contributed to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench, they are nothing more than deferred wages.

Richard Fuller: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is absolutely right that firefighters, prison workers, doctors and nurses contribute to their pensions, but so do taxpayers. Indeed, a considerable amount of most public pensions is paid for by the taxpayer. If he wishes to push the point about certainty, does he agree that the Government should have considered a fully funded pension scheme, rather than rely on future taxpayers to pay for future pensions, with all the uncertainty about whether they will be able to afford it? Should the Government not have grasped the nettle and gone for a fully funded pension scheme now?

John McDonnell: The local government scheme is fully funded, yet the Government seek to interfere with that, too. If we are to open up the debate, let us do so; however, the Government seem to be making piecemeal reforms for their own economic objectives and then not even standing by them. The problem is the uncertainty.
	Let me turn to the detail of amendment 4. As those of us who have been involved in pension negotiations will know, one of the most important elements is ensuring that the valuation process is right, because that is what determines not just the future payouts from the scheme, but its future security; there are also probity issues. I am concerned that the legislation as drafted would give no role to employees or their representatives in the revaluation system. My amendment 4 is a mild-mannered amendment to provide that the valuation report should be sent not just to the scheme manager and the employer, but to the employees’ representatives. That would promote at least some openness and transparency, which might reassure participants in the scheme.
	Few pension decisions are more important to employees than the contribution levels, which stem from the valuation process. We have seen a unilateral change in contribution rates, which I think, to be frank, will deter many people from participating in those schemes and may throw the long-term future of those schemes into jeopardy. If there has been a valuation, the report should be sent to the employees’ representatives. It should be open and transparent, and it should then be possible to have a discussion about the valuation. That is what amendment 4 seeks to do. It simply says that the report should be sent not just to the scheme manager, but to the employee representatives, and that the terms of the revaluation should be mutually agreed. It is simply about participation.

Richard Fuller: Would the hon. Gentleman, like me, put this issue in the same area as transparency and giving information to people in pension schemes, which will help people to make better judgments? Just as we heard when new clause 2 was being moved, the provision of information about what is in their pension or how that is assessed helps people to make rational decisions.

John McDonnell: That is exactly right. There has to be openness and transparency. The point has already been made, but some of us will now have to go out there and campaign to keep people in these schemes. The way to do that is by having openness and transparency about what they are paying in, the benefits being made and, I agree, the overall contribution made by taxpayers.
	I fear for the future. We have seen the Fire Brigades Union survey of what would happen if there were increases in pension contributions to those workers’ scheme and also a reduction in benefits. Some 30% told the survey that they would question whether they wished to continue in the scheme. A 30% withdrawal rate would undermine some of those schemes. That is why openness and transparency are important. One of the key areas for openness and transparency is in the valuation process, with the terminology and methodology agreed with the employee representatives, so that they have confidence that the process is being conducted fairly, openly and, to be frank, professionally. In addition, once the revaluation is done, the report should be provided to the employee representatives. I can see nothing in that with which the Government could disagree.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us might well have to campaign to ensure that people invest and stick with these schemes, but even if we get valuation and transparency right, is there not a “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza” syndrome with these Henry VIII powers? People will say, “You can say all that, but you can’t promise that it will be so when I reach pension age.”

John McDonnell: I fully agree. What concerns me is that the Henry VIII powers in clause 3 are retrospective. This is another reason why the valuation process is so critical: if there is not full openness, transparency and consultation, in particular with employee representatives, the Government could in future use the valuation process to withdraw some of the benefits of the scheme or increase the contributions retrospectively. People can sign up to a scheme and pay into it for 20 years, but then
	be told that the benefits are different—although I think that will be tested in law, because I believe that legally we are talking about accrued rights that are protected under European legislation. The Government do not accept that argument, but it is a critical point. That is why I have tabled my amendments. The Government underestimate the anxiety and fears out there—particularly among trade unions, but also in other organisations—which arise from the lack of confidence in the future management of the schemes in the best interests of employees and members.
	Let me turn to my amendments 7 and 8. The Government’s reform was meant to change the nature of the schemes, so that they would be based on career averages, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench. However, that is for a defined benefit scheme, not a defined contribution scheme, yet the Government have not committed themselves to that in the legislation. That is why I have tabled amendments 7 and 8, so that where a scheme is rearranged or staff are transferred into a new scheme, they must be defined benefit schemes, because that is what was promised in the negotiations with the trade unions. It is argued that we are binding future Governments, but all legislation is meant to bind future Governments, and any future Government could revisit this matter. At the same time, we need to try to give at least some security and ensure that the promises given by the present Government are adhered to. That is not much to ask, and it is all my amendments are designed to do.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger exactly on the issue: insecurity for future pensioners. That, combined with ever-growing inequality in our society and the economic multipliers that we might see operating, means that people who are now living quite comfortably might be facing penury in their old age, due to the root insecurity at the base of this Bill, which he is doing a good job of exposing.

John McDonnell: In part, this is linked to other reforms that the Government are introducing—my hon. Friend the shadow Minister touched on this. Where changes have been made to the delivery of public services—some of this relates to outsourcing, reorganising government or delivering direct services through new Government agencies or public bodies—people understood that there would be a commitment from the Government that they would be transferred into the same scheme they are in now, which would be a defined benefit scheme. That is not in this Bill, which is why I have tabled my amendments.
	The amendments put the onus on whatever bodies are established—non-departmental public bodies or whatever—to ensure that they offer a defined benefit scheme. If they do not, they are breaking the commitment that the Government gave. In addition, it will create a disincentive. When staff transfer, they transfer into the new scheme that will be established. Many people now in a defined benefit scheme—whatever its nature, whether final or average salary, although we are moving towards average salary—fear that if at some stage they move, they will be offered only a defined contribution scheme. That is why I want more certainty in the legislation. The amendments propose that whatever happens in the
	future, whatever restructuring the Government bring in and whatever new schemes are established, the Government will adhere to their promise that there must be a defined benefit scheme. I do not want to be cataclysmic about this, but if that does not happen, the legislation could undermine the whole provision of public service pensions. People could start to withdraw from the schemes because they did not have the certainty that they thought they had when they entered them.
	The amendments might seem relatively minor, but they are absolutely key. If we do not bring the employees with us, if we do not consult their representatives, if we do not involve them in the valuation process and if we do not stand by the guarantee of a defined benefit scheme that they have been given, we will break down people’s confidence in the public sector pensions system overall, and we will certainly break down their confidence in this Government’s ability to adhere to their promises. This is not the 25-year guarantee of no further reform that we were given from the Dispatch Box only a matter of weeks ago.

Bob Neill: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He and I have been circling around issues of local government finance and pensions for—

John McDonnell: For more years than I can remember.

Bob Neill: I have worked it out; it must be well over 30 years in chambers of one kind or another around London. We do not always come to the same conclusions, but I take on board the expertise that he brings to this topic. I agree with his point that it is important, when dealing with the schemes that he and I have been involved with, to give the members of the schemes an assurance that they will have a secure pension in future.
	I have spent most of my life dealing with the local government pension scheme, and I am going to talk about that today. Indeed, I should declare an interest as a member of that scheme. I recognise that change often raises concern and creates a measure of insecurity, and it is the job of those of us who have governance of these schemes, locally and nationally, to deal with that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) pointed out, however, the biggest cause of insecurity and the biggest risk to scheme members would be the lack of a secure financial basis for the future of the scheme. That is why the Government’s reforms are necessary; that is the most important reassurance that we can give to people.
	There are other important points that we can take on board in the context of the amendments, and I want to talk about the local government schemes in particular. It has already been recognised in the House that they fall into a different category because of their substantially funded nature, which places them in a different position, and because of the considerable diversity within the sector. There are a number of schemes involved, and they generally have a good management track record and a system of management that creates transparency and democratic accountability. I hope that we can ensure that the regulations that will finally embody the schemes will recognise those differences.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that we should take at face value the assurances given by those on the Treasury Bench, and I have no hesitation doing so. I put it as gently as possible when I say that there has been a degree of needless raising of concern among scheme members, perhaps—dare I say it?—for partisan reasons. That is unhelpful.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is urging us to take at face value the statements from those on his Front Bench. Let me tell him what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in Committee about the concerns over the fair deal. He said that
	“it is important that we consider in full the views of all stakeholders, including of course those who will be affected, through further consultation before making a final decision on the issue.”––[Official Report, Public Services Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 459.]
	I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, taken at face value, that suggests that the final decision has not yet been taken, contrary to the agreements reached with the trade unions on pensions reform.

Bob Neill: The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a former local government Minister, that there has already been considerable consultation and discussion on the shape of the local government schemes. In any event, there is to be a formal consultation as well. I do not read the same connotations into the Minister’s words as the right hon. Gentleman does. That is not my reading of the discussions to which I was party when I was a Minister. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should be as transparent and upfront as possible in our discussions with scheme members.
	We need to move from our previous position, which was not financially sustainable, towards a better place. It is perfectly reasonable for my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to be doing precisely that. I hope that, in so doing, they will recognise that the local government employers and unions have come to an agreement that meets the Government’s cost parameters. In my judgment, it also broadly reflects the particular circumstances and differences of the scheme.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that, even though the scheme will, for perfectly legitimate public policy reasons, require the sign-off of the Treasury, the ultimate shape of the scheme will be strongly informed by the particular expertise that exists in the local government world and among those who advised me in the Department for Communities and Local Government on the particular nature of these pension schemes and the best way to take these matters forward. I am prepared to accept that that can be done, and it is important that it should be done. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us on that point.
	The other short points that I want to make involve technical issues. There is still time for us to consider some potential unintended consequences of the legislation, which it would not be inconsistent with the objectives of the Bill to resolve.

Andy Sawford: I should have declared my interest as a member of the local government pension scheme when I first intervened. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the technical issues, as those on our Front Bench have pointed out, is that the language we use should allude to the amendment of the schemes rather than to their closure? If the local government pension schemes that are in currently in deficit were to be closed, the employers involved would immediately become liable to pay those deficits. That could have a hugely disruptive effect not only on the people receiving pensions now and in the future but on the local authorities themselves and the public services that they provide.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his arrival in the House. I have been dealing with him in the local government world for many years. I did my best to prevent him from coming here, but it clearly was not quite enough. He anticipates one of the technical issues that I was going to mention, and it is perhaps the most substantial one. Chronologically, it is not the first in relation to the Bill, but I might as well deal with it now for the sake of completeness.
	I read with care the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister gave in Committee. I entirely accept that it is not the Government’s intention to create crystallisation. However, I note that the finer details of the proposals are being considered, and we should look carefully at that. The Minister said that there was no requirement for the funds to be wound up, and I accept that, but I hope that he will consider the issues that have been raised by the Local Government Association about legal ambiguity.
	I do not doubt that the Minister has no intention of creating a closure that would crystallise the debts of a scheme. That was always the basis on which I approached such negotiations when I was a Minister, and I am certain that nothing has changed in that regard. However, this was one area in which some of the nuttiest legal advice needed to be obtained—[ Interruption. ] I should have said “knottiest”. There is sometimes a risk of legal ambiguity, and that must be avoided at all costs. I would therefore urge my hon. Friend and his advisers at the Treasury to take on board the work that has been done in the DCLG and other Departments to find a means of resolving this issue. We all know where we want to end up, and I am sure that there is a means of achieving that. I know that the Minister’s skills and abilities will get us there. It is right to point out that some issues still need to be addressed, but they are not insurmountable in the context of where the Government want to get to. It is an important area to clarify to the maximum extent.
	The other issue I want to touch on is governance. I hope that the Minister will consider the concerns raised by the Local Government Association and the unions about the lack of segregation between the scheme manager and the scheme board. Again, I do not think there is any dispute between us about where we want to end up, but it is a fact that the local government schemes have a good record in their management and a good record on transparency. When experienced representatives of local government employers raise concerns that the two functions of the scheme manager and the scheme board are difficult to reconcile within the same body, those concerns should not, in my judgment, be lightly dismissed. I note
	that the Minister sensibly and properly took on board the fact that there are still developments going on here and that proposals are still being developed. I hope that that will continue to be the case, and when he responds to the debate, he may be able to update us and reassure us that continuing discussions will take place with the experts in the local government sector to make sure that we get the best possible design for those matters.
	Finally and more generally, I ask the Minister not to be deterred by undue reference to Henry VIII clauses. When I was taking the Localism Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill through the House, if I had £5 for every time I was criticised about Henry VIII clauses, I would have retired to some tax haven as a very rich man. [Interruption.] I probably would not have not done that actually as I enjoy being here so much,. However, it is part of the knockabout banter we get here that Oppositions always say that there are excessive Henry VIII clauses, but when one looks back, one finds that when the Opposition move into government, they construct Bills with exactly the same sort of clauses. That is why I urge the Minister not to be put off by that; it is necessary to build in the flexibility that such clauses provide in any piece of legislation of this kind. What are important are the statements of intent about the manner in which those clauses should be used. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.

Angus MacNeil: What the hon. Gentleman said gives me the opportunity to peg in as a general point the fact that this debate is set against a backdrop of mood music that pensions are spiralling and are actually increasing, but the effect of the Bill is not to arrest pensions, but to cut them and to cut net contributions to pension schemes by 0.1% of gross domestic product, which is what the Government are saving. That, of course, is taken out of the pockets of many people who have worked hard for many years in our public services.

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman and I once worked out that we might have a very, very, very—however many “verys” we put into it—distant relative in common, but with every gentleness and respect, I would have to tell him that we do no good service at all to our public services by being unrealistic about the affordability of pension arrangements.
	I talked about the intent with which we approach these matters and about honesty, transparency and being frank about the financial realities that underpin the schemes. This measure is a critical part of that. The most important service we can provide is to be frank and to produce a scheme, which I am satisfied the Bill does, that is financially sustainable for the future. We have talked about the technical issues, but the overall thrust of being financially honest about the affordability of our public sector pension schemes is absolutely critical—and the Government have got that right.

Eilidh Whiteford: I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Clerks and to Mr Speaker for their forbearance in ensuring that the amendment tabled in my name is debated in the most appropriate group this afternoon. That said, there is but one lonely little amendment—amendment 32, which would amend clause 16—in my name in this group. In some ways, it is very technical and practical amendment,
	but it would allow for the closure of existing Scottish schemes by 1 April 2016 instead of 2015. It would put these reforms on a much more realistic time scale.
	I am sure Members will be aware that the Scottish Government have devolved executive competence for a number of aspects of a number of Scottish public sector pension schemes. There have been considerable delays in establishing exactly what flexibilities are open to the Scottish Government in those areas for which they have responsibility, and it has been difficult to gain clarity over what that process might look like. That has obviously had an impact on the negotiating process.
	Gaining clarity has happened in extremely piecemeal fashion. Back in March 2012, Ministers initiated partnership negotiations with employers and trade unions about the pension schemes of the NHS, teachers, police and firefighters. On 28 March, a letter arrived from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I am sorry he is not with us for this debate—setting out some new constraints regarding the links between normal pension age and state pension age, which we will debate later. In May, there was more communication from the Chief Secretary, who informed the Scottish Government that they would require explicit Treasury consent for cost-sensitive changes to the teachers or the NHS schemes, and in July the Scottish Government were informed that the UK Government wanted to extend the Bill to non-departmental public bodies and Scottish judicial offices. At that stage, there was still no clarity on flexibilities relating to the pension age requirements, which everyone knows is a key sticking point in the negotiations.

Cathy Jamieson: I understand the hon. Lady’s point and I know that some of the trade unions have commented on the matter. Is she aware of the correspondence between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Scottish Government in October, in which the Scottish Government were invited to suggest some amendments to the Bill? Is her amendment one of those that the Scottish Government suggested to the Chief Secretary or to other Ministers?

Eilidh Whiteford: I am afraid that I am not privy to the Scottish Government’s processes on this, so I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question with any certainty whatever. What I can say is that the Scottish Government got clarity only a few weeks ago on the extent to which it can deviate from the proposals for England and Wales, and that the degree is quite limited indeed. I think the Scottish Government will have some flexibilities on accrual rates and some revaluation bases.

Angus MacNeil: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: I will not give way to my hon. Friend at the moment because I want to make some short remarks in this part of the debate, and save my fuller comments for later.
	The Scottish Government also requires explicit consent from the Treasury for any cost-sensitive changes to the NHS or teachers schemes.
	Will the Minister accept my amendment and recognise how tight the time scales are, given the complex range of responsibilities—varying responsibilities relating to different schemes—and how tough the negotiations are? Not all partners to the negotiations even accept the need for
	this set of reforms. In 28 months’ time, when the provisions would otherwise commence, the Scottish Government would have had not only to complete the negotiations, prepare and pass legislation, but ensure that the employers and scheme administrators could prepare their systems and processes before the 2015 deadline.
	This is a very technical amendment in some respects, but it is a very important one. I hope that the Minister will have listened carefully and will be pragmatic in his response to it later.

John Healey: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in the amendments he has tabled. Each and every one of them is important. Given that we are having a reflective debate on Report, I hope we will get a reflective response from the Economic Secretary at the end of our debate on this group.
	Let me start where it seems to me that there has been a strong measure of agreement across the House—on the importance of having good, regular and accurate pensions information for scheme members. I think we could all agree that what should underpin our pension schemes—this relates to new clause 2—are higher standards of governance, openness and administration. Such underpinning, then, should be provided in this Bill’s provisions for those public service pension schemes in the future. There is bound to be greater confidence and trust in the schemes, along with better understanding of them, if members are given more information.
	We have all used Lord Hutton’s report as our starting point for the purposes of the Bill. Lord Hutton pointed out:
	“Not all public service pension schemes communicate with members on a regular basis. Currently it is a requirement of defined contribution schemes in the private sector that they provide members with an annual benefit statement: this is not the case for defined benefit schemes”
	—which, of course, the majority of public service pension schemes are. Lord Hutton also proposed, in his recommendation 18, precisely what my hon. Friend has advocated in new clause 2:
	“All public service pension schemes should issue regular benefit statements to active scheme members, at least annually and without being requested”.
	I must say that I thought my hon. Friend let the Economic Secretary off a little lightly when he said that he was not expecting the Government to accept the new clause, but was merely seeking an indication that they would table an amendment of their own in the House of Lords. That would certainly be satisfactory, but it would be desirable if the Government said “We accept the principle and we want the practice, so we will legislate accordingly by adopting the new clause.” It must surely be a matter of common sense and consensus that members being kept informed about their schemes so that they can plan for their retirement must be a good thing; and that good thing can be guaranteed in the Bill. I see no serious case against new clause 2.
	I think that Lord Hutton’s proposal for a national board for the local government pension scheme is consistent with the bid for better standards, better information and better understanding among scheme members. The employers’ side, the Local Government Association,
	the union side, and members of unions such as the GMB all agree that Lord Hutton was right to make that recommendation, but we are still waiting to see it enshrined in the Bill. I hope that the provision for better standards and information for scheme members that we hope the Government will introduce will include provision for a national board.

Andy Sawford: One of my worries about the pension scheme changes relates to the different impacts that they will have on different communities. Sadly, as my hon. Friend may know, Corby has one of the 10 lowest life expectancy rates in the country. As we review the schemes, and, in particular, as we seek to give people information about the future benefits that they may expect, we should recognise that there are huge regional variations in life expectancy, and that it is important for people and their families to be able to plan for their future.

John Healey: My hon. Friend’s constituency is in Northamptonshire and mine is in south Yorkshire, but we share an industrial heritage and a strong tradition of steel-making, and I entirely understand the point that he has made. It is as relevant to Corby and to east Northamptonshire as it is to Wentworth and Dearne and parts of Rotherham and Barnsley.
	New clause 3 is simply intended to ensure that the undertaking given to the House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and given to the unions that have been negotiating about pension schemes changes on behalf of their members, is guaranteed, and that Ministers will not be able to change their minds and change the schemes in the future. This must be legislation for a 25-year deal, which is what the Government originally promised us.
	The question of access to public service pension schemes for public service workers who may face compulsory transferral to non-public service employers and organisations is critical. As has already been pointed out, the Government’s commitment to an extension was a deal-maker for many unions and for many of their members, particularly on the local government side. It would have been a deal-breaker for those unions and members if the guarantee had not been in place, or if what the Economic Secretary said in Committee—which I have quoted—had been on the table instead. We had a clear and principled commitment. That commitment ought to be included in the Bill, and then, as is appropriate in the case of enabling legislation of this sort, the details of the mechanism for how it is to be implemented can be provided in further regulation or scheme rules.
	I must say to the Economic Secretary—as some of my hon. Friends have already said—that trust is a problem for the Government in the public services, particularly when it comes to public service pensions. That should come as no surprise to them. After all, they commissioned Hutton to produce the report, and before the publication of the final version, they hit public service workers with a 3% tax surcharge on their pension payments, and with not just a temporary but a permanent switching of the link with pensions from the retail to the consumer prices index. A commitment in the Bill will serve as a confirmation and a reassurance for public service workers that the Government do indeed mean what they say in this regard.
	Let me say something about amendments 19 and 20, and about the Bill’s use of the concept of “closure”. During this debate and in Committee, the terms “closure” and “winding up” have been used almost synonymously, but they are not, of course, synonymous. The winding-up provisions in the Pensions Act 1995 apply principally to occupational pension schemes. Those schemes are different from local government pension schemes, which are funded and have the quasi-constitutional backing of local government.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Economic Secretary has said that that it is not the intention to close local government pension schemes. If, as the Government seem to be arguing, closure does not mean closure and there is no intention to legislate for closure of any of the funds, this change should be straightforward. It is evidently needed, especially given that the concern of employers, scheme members, trustees, and unions representing many of the members has been consistent and clear. Why risk uncertainty, why risk a legal challenge, why risk financial jeopardy for some funds, by allowing debts to be triggered in the particular circumstances of a funded scheme for local government?
	It may not be the Government’s intention at present to reduce people’s benefits that they have already accrued. It may not be their intention to end any flexibility in the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. It may not be their intention to make further and sweeping radical changes or cuts in people’s pension provision. As it stands, however, the Bill allows all those things to happen. That is why the new clauses and amendments are so important. They will reassure pension scheme members, now and in the future, that this is a settlement for the long term, that the Government mean what they say, and that the Government can, in the longer run, be trusted with public service pensions. Scheme members have seen little evidence since 2010 that that is really the case.

Mike Freer: Members have discussed the technical definition of “closure”, and I ask the Economic Secretary to make it clear in his response that closure does not mean closure, but instead means the scheme is frozen while a new scheme is run alongside and in parallel. Members have talked about the effects of closing a scheme and the crystallisation of outstanding liabilities. In respect of the local government pension scheme, the council tax payer would then be forced to meet those liabilities in one fell swoop. That runs contrary to all the other efforts the Treasury is making to keep council taxes down, so if closure is, indeed, what is intended, there would appear to be a lack of joined-up thinking in the Treasury.

John Healey: I support the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I hope the Economic Secretary will, too. For clarity’s sake, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this does not only affect local councils, as schools that are academies, charities and a number of non-government organisations also use the local government pension scheme?

Mike Freer: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Having chaired the London borough of Barnet pension fund committee for several years, I know that while the council is by far the largest fund, there are also many admitted bodies for which it administers funds,
	such as Middlesex university, academies and various charities. The crystallisation of debt that may arise if there is any vagueness in the legislation could therefore have massive impacts not only on councils, which could, perhaps, withstand the financial shock by using reserves and spreading the effects over many years, but on smaller admitted bodies, who certainly could not do that.
	As we have seen in respect of Equitable Life, once a fund closes and becomes a zombie fund, all the good fund managers flee. No decent fund manager worth their salt wants to manage a zombie fund. Therefore, because of the performance of the zombie fund, the liability grows still further. The implications of crystallisation of liabilities in this context must be taken into account. I urge the Economic Secretary to explain precisely what he means when referring to closing a fund. I believe he means that one fund would remain but would have no new contributions and no new members, and a new fund would run in parallel. I urge him to make that clear.
	On the issues addressed in new clause 2, I urge the Government to go further, because best practice in the public sector in respect of providing information is not enough. It is my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary’s birthday tomorrow; I think he will turn 43 years of age. I calculate that by the time he reaches the normal pensionable age of the parliamentary scheme he will have contributed some 24 years of accrued service, presuming that he is in a one fortieth, one fiftieth or one sixtieth scheme with the various contribution rates that attach to them. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is a man of finance and has a head for figures, so I have no doubt that he understands the pension choices he has made, but I spend a surprisingly large amount of my time explaining to teachers and others—on Saturday I spoke to a police officer—exactly how their pension works, because they do not know and do not understand.
	Further requirements in terms of transparency and quantity of information are needed, therefore, because people need to make rational decisions. If we want to defuse the pension time bomb, people have to make a rational decision based on information, not supposition. A constituent of mine who is a doctor has been trying for six months to get information from the NHS about his pension contributions and likely benefits. That is simply not good enough. The Government must go further in this regard.

Angus MacNeil: In respect of this Bill and the commitment to public sector pensions, what change in GDP are we likely to see?

Mike Freer: I am not qualified to judge that. I am not an economist, so I do not have information about the impact on GDP. It might be appropriate to ask the Economic Secretary that question, however.

David Davies: I am not an economist either, but the issue is not the predicted rise in GDP; rather, it is the predicted fall in the working population who will be available to pay the pensions of a growing number of older people.

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The pensions time bomb is not only to do with the fact that people are making insufficient provision; it is also about there being insufficient taxpayers to make up the gap between the contributions made by employer and employee and that gap having to be made up from general taxation. There are two parts of the time bomb, therefore. Unless accurate information is provided on pensions, people will not be able to make the appropriate decisions.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mike Freer: As long as the intervention is not a question about GDP.

Angus MacNeil: In terms of the provisions in the Bill, the House of Commons Library informs us that this time bomb will be cut from 1.6% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP.

Mike Freer: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. After our debate, I may have to check whether I have said something that I cannot remember saying, and I apologise that I cannot respond to that point at present.
	The House spends a huge amount of time regulating. The Food Labelling (Nutrition Information) (England) Regulations 2009 spell out in considerable detail the information that must be on food labels. The labels specify for consumers the fibre content, edible carbohydrate polymers, synthetic carbohydrates, salt content, kilojoules and calories, sugar content, fatty acids of trans fatty acids, yet when we ask people to make choices about their pensions, which is one of the biggest decisions of their life, we give them no information at all. I urge the Economic Secretary to go further by ensuring accurate information is included in our pension statements.

Sheila Gilmore: At least with regard to new clause 2 and the need for good communication and good information, it appears that there is a fair degree of cross-House agreement. Members may have different motives for wanting such information to be given, and may hold different views about what behavioural change that might drive. Some Members might also hint that they want this information to be given so that public sector workers are properly and humbly grateful for retaining better pensions than the absolutely dreadful pensions of many in the private sector. I hope the Economic Secretary will respond positively, however, and agree that this is an important step. It will be deeply ironic if better and more thorough information is given to people with private sector pensions than to those with public sector pensions.
	We all want to avoid too much information being given, of course, with people receiving many pages of information, much of it hard to understand. We do not want to over-egg that pudding. There is a parallel debate happening in the world of private sector pensions on giving good, accurate but still efficient information, so that people can look at a single page of information—that is preferable—and understand what their likely pensions are going to be. On that matter I hope that the Minister, having heard the debate in Committee and again today,
	will be happy to make some changes to the provisions. I cannot see why new clause 2 should not be in the Bill, as it deals with such a major issue.
	I wish briefly to discuss new clause 3, which deals with the issue of a fair deal. Again, there would appear to be a substantial degree of agreement across the House on the substance of the issue. Nobody is saying, “We don’t think these should be the provisions.” The question that has been raised is whether they should be in the Bill. Some Government Members have suggested that accepting what the clearly stated view of Ministers has been at various points should be good enough, because it is on the record and we should be confident that that is sufficient. However, as far as I am aware, it is not possible to litigate on the basis of what people simply said, rather than what is in legislation. People have attempted to say in the past, “But that was the intention”, even doing so in respect of debates in this House. However, legal disputes about rights or obligations turn on the much narrower construction of what is written in the Bill.
	I am not suggesting, in any way, that those who have spoken during our consideration of the Bill do not intend what they have said, but many public sector workers are genuinely concerned. As I said in my earlier intervention, the matter becomes a great deal more important if the Government continue, as they presumably will, over the next two years to do what they say they want to do: outsource more of what we would regard, or have traditionally regarded, as public sector activities. That has already happened to some extent. Some people have explained how this could be very positive, with employee mutuals and all kinds of social enterprises springing up to provide public services. If the Government are genuinely serious about wanting current public sector employees not just to have to do this, but to be enthusiastic about doing it, these safeguards have to be in place. If this is the road that is to be pursued, it is even more important to have these provisions than it may have been in the past. Saying, “You didn’t do it before so we don’t need to do it now” is not a particularly good argument; some of us might disagree what had been done previously. Even if we do not, the argument is still not particularly good, as we have also to learn from experience. I hope that the Government will seriously consider legislation on this matter, because if they genuinely have no intention of departing from the promised arrangement I cannot see what the problem is. When people begin to say there is a problem, that is when those paying into these schemes—the employees likely to be affected—begin to smell a rat. There may be no rat there, but why not make things absolutely clear?
	That is also true of what we are trying to achieve in amendment 12, which deals with an apparent possibility arising from clause 7. Again we were given assurances in Committee that we should not be reading into this something that the Government do not intend. Clause 7 says:
	“Scheme regulations may establish a scheme…as
	(a) a defined benefits scheme”.
	It then goes on to talk about
	“a scheme of any other description”.
	It is not at all clear what is actually meant. We were told that one or two specialist defined contribution schemes
	are in existence, but people are clear that the promise that was made as part of this negotiation is that the defined benefits schemes would remain in place. They will, however, be changed, and during the negotiation employees in various parts of the public sector accepted substantial changes in the kind of pension because they accepted the imperatives. In moving from final salary pension schemes to career average schemes, changes are being made in accrual rates. All sorts of changes have been made—for example, the forthcoming changes to pension age—but they were made on the basis that the scheme will remain as a defined benefit scheme.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and sounding a clear warning. She mentions that clause 7(1) refers to
	“a defined contributions scheme, or
	( c) a scheme of any other description.”
	Would she like to point out to the House that this potential change in clause 7 could in theory, under subsection (5), be brought in by way of a negative resolution—by a statutory instrument that would not allow a debate in this Chamber or even a 90-minute debate in a Committee upstairs?

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is an important point. If the rest of the clause did not give rise to the possibility of substantial changes, that provision might be acceptable. However, where we are talking about much greater changes, it is particularly important that the full debate takes place.
	Again, there appears to be a difference between giving an assurance and a reluctance to see that assurance embedded in the Bill. Various people have mentioned that the whole debate we have had, particularly since 2010, has eroded some of the public sector workers’ trust. I do not generally seek to be overly alarmist in these matters, but even in Committee—I am pleased to say that this has not happened today—there were points when we could see exactly why many public sector workers are apprehensive, There were those, admittedly not a ministerial level but on the Government Back Benches, who clearly still feel that public sector pensions are too generous. The underlying thinking is that at some point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, further attempts will be made in that regard.
	I fully accept that even with the changes that come through this Bill and through other negotiations that have taken place, public sector pensions remain far better than private sector pensions. However, we always have to remember that the comparator we now have is absolutely dreadful private sector pensions, regardless of where we place the blame and how that has happened. One thing that politicians should be doing in the next few months and years is trying to improve private sector pensions.
	Finally, I wish to discuss amendment 11, which relates to the local government scheme in Scotland.
	Generally, the arrangements for many public sector schemes in Scotland have been that Scottish Ministers could make regulations, but that they were subject to Treasury approval. For the most part, whether because of that need for Treasury approval or because until relatively recently there has been no reason to depart
	from the UK-wide arrangements as doing so might create various anomalies that would not always be helpful, the regulations for schemes—all those that are not funded, at least—have lain with Scottish Ministers but have been made in the same way.
	The exception is the local government pension scheme and the difference is that that is a funded scheme. It has been regulated in a way that has not normally had Treasury approval. The purpose of our amendment is to exclude the Scottish local government pension scheme from the Bill, which would enable matters relating to that scheme to be dealt with by Scottish Ministers. The amendment would perhaps add clarity to the devolution of power, but, more importantly, it would embed the practice as regards that scheme and safeguard it. Otherwise, the Bill would mean that the Treasury would be involved in setting aspects of the Scottish local government scheme and, for the first time, local government workers in Scotland might find that changes can be made to their pensions by the UK Government.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is making another powerful point about amendment 11. She is right that the Scottish Government are not normally backward in coming forward to demand new powers and for decisions to be taken in Scotland for Scotland. Would she care to speculate about why they have not chosen to apply for a legislative consent motion that would allow them to make these decisions in Scotland? Could it be that they are looking to allow the broad shoulders of the Economic Secretary to take the blame and responsibility for the changes to the local government pension scheme in Scotland?

Sheila Gilmore: I was going to come to that point, because I am surprised that that opportunity has not been taken, given the context. As my right hon. Friend will know, this is a difficult and sensitive subject, but—this point might well be speculative and I am sure that people will wish to deny that it is the case—it is no secret that we are in a particular stage of politics in Scotland, and it would—

Eilidh Whiteford: I think I might be rescuing the hon. Lady from the point she was trying to make. Earlier, she stressed the importance of considering what is actually in the legislation rather than the world as we would like it to be. Does she welcome the fact that John Swinney has not exercised his flexibility to increase contributions to the local government pension scheme?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) will comment on that point only if it is relevant to the amendments we are considering. I remind hon. Members that we are not yet on Third Reading. The debate is going rather wide of the new clauses and amendments, so perhaps the hon. Lady could return to them.

Sheila Gilmore: I am more than happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we will have further debate on that topic.
	If amendment 11 were agreed to, considerable and greater power would be available for the Scottish Parliament than the current Scottish Government appear to want.
	Within the context of the politics at present, I do not think it would be idle speculation to suggest that that might be convenient.

Cathy Jamieson: With reference to the amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) earlier, notwithstanding the comments I made at that stage, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the Scottish Government is complaining that there are only some 28 months to conclude negotiations on pensions when a great deal of the Scottish Government’s effort appears to be going on other things at the moment? Perhaps some of that resource could be used to resolve these issues.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I suspect that it might also be outwith the terms of the new clause, so I shall refrain from commenting.
	Finally, there is a risk that we are missing something in Scotland and are not getting—or even trying to get—the powers we could have. That decision might be for purely party political reasons, so that people can lay blame, saying, “There is nothing we can do; we cannot make life better for you because we do not have the power to do so. It is all because of that nasty Government down in London and your only way out of this is to make that amazing leap so that with one bound we are free. Then, everything will suddenly be wonderful,” in the hope that that will persuade the people of Scotland that they should vote for separation. I am confident that the level-headedness of the Scottish people will mean that they will not be taken in by such proceedings.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for her speech. For the short time for which I have been a Minister so far, in every debate and in every Bill Committee in which I have been involved, no matter what the subject, she has spoken. I can always rely on her to quiz me and keep me on my toes, so I thank her for that.
	Let me also thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to the discussions we have just had: the shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). I shall try to deal with all the points that were raised.
	I am glad that we are starting with new clause 2 and that we have started our debate discussing annual benefit statements. It is right that scheme members should be kept informed of their pension rights and provided with an annual update. I fully understand the case for doing more in that area and find myself in agreement with the arguments that Members on both sides of the House raised today and in Committee.
	I agree that information should be provided for some members, without request, in one format or another. However, I cannot support the precise wording of the new clause. For example, it does not distinguish between
	active, pensioner and deferred members but we would need to take that distinction into account. I would also wish to ensure that any change was future-proof—for example, we should not inadvertently mandate paper statements when it might be easier and cheaper for schemes to implement online and perhaps mobile technologies in the future.
	Although I respect and understand the spirit in which the new clause was tabled, and although I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, I would not propose to use its exact wording. I am now persuaded that there is a case for going the extra mile to ensure regular updates are provided for scheme members. That is why we will consider the matter further and propose an amendment in the other place to deal with annual benefit statements.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I had quite a lot of sympathy with the Opposition’s case, simply because many of the representations made to me as a constituency MP while the negotiations were taking place contained a mixture of misinformation that came, perhaps, from the trade unions or from a basic misunderstanding of the scheme. The Government and all the scheme employers definitely have a role to play in clarifying the terms and conditions of the scheme so that we do not have these misunderstandings again.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I hope that he is also reassured by the commitment I have just given.
	I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley and Golders Green and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for their input on this issue in Committee.

John Healey: I welcome that commitment. The Minister said that the information should be provided “to some scheme members”. May I urge him to take a maximalist approach and make sure that the maximum reasonable number of members get the most regular and at least annual information that will allow them to understand the scheme better and to plan for retirement and manage it better as well?

Sajid Javid: I agree. All scheme members, one way or the other, should receive annual information. That is the type of amendment we will table in the other place. However, there are different types of members of schemes, such as deferred members and active members. That needs to be taken into account when they receive that information.

Jim Shannon: I seek clarification and perhaps also reassurance in relation to those who are members of small public bodies. They have been informed that their pensions will transfer to larger schemes where they feel that they will lose out more than anyone else. What assurance can the Minister give the House and people in small public bodies that their pension rights will be guaranteed or assured?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. We will come to a related issue later, which may be a better point at which to discuss that.
	We had a robust discussion of new clause 3. The Government have set out their commitment to retaining the fair deal, but reforming it. Staff who are transferred from the public sector to an independent provider will be provided with continued access to the public sector pension scheme. This commitment has been made on numerous occasions by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton rightly mentioned in his contribution. It was announced on 20 December 2011 and confirmed in the Chief Secretary’s announcement on 4 July this year. We also reaffirmed this in our response to the fair deal consultation which was published on 19 November this year.
	The Opposition say that the Government have not made a commitment to the fair deal in the Bill. That is not entirely correct. Both clauses 22 and 26 allow for the new fair deal policy to be implemented. The Bill has been deliberately crafted so that the new fair deal can be delivered under these provisions. Let me be clear. The current fair deal, which Members are rightly keen to retain, has never been statutory. The new fair deal does not need to be statutory to bind non-public sector providers to the policy. The contracts that independent contractors enter into when tendering will ensure that the fair deal is applied.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne referred to my comments in Committee, and it is important to be clear. We are consulting on how the fair deal should apply to those employees who have already been transferred out under the existing fair deal, but we are not consulting on the commitment that we have already made, which is that public sector workers who are transferred out under the new fair deal will retain a right to public sector pensions. We are also consulting on what to do when an existing contract that has already been tendered out is retendered under the new fair deal. There is work to be done to determine how and when the new policy will be implemented. We want to be sure that the contracts put in place will safeguard the legal rights of employees and employers. As the Government, rather than the independent providers of the services, will be retaining the risk of providing these pensions, we need to get this right.
	The amendment would also bind the local government pension scheme. However, the fair deal does not apply to staff transferred out of local government. It would not be appropriate to accept the amendment as the implications for local government and the LGPS need to be fully explored. This is work that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), is already doing. For all of these reasons, we believe the amendment is unnecessary and would pre-empt the ongoing work on the local government scheme.
	On amendment 11, we will no doubt look at Scotland in more detail later in the debate, but let me try to set hon. Members’ minds to rest on the issues raised in the amendment. Legislative competence for the local government pension scheme in Scotland sits with this Parliament. The approval of the Scottish Parliament is therefore not needed under the Sewel convention or the Scotland Act 1998 for primary legislation on Scottish local government pensions. This is a position accepted by the Scottish Government and emphasised by the
	Scottish Finance Minister on 28 November. He told the Scottish Parliament that the Bill does not contain any provisions
	“over pensions for local government, the national health service, teachers or police and fire staff—that would trigger the Sewel convention.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 28 November 2012; c. 14014.]
	I am aware of how pressing the question of devolution is for some of our colleagues in Scotland, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) would agree that the Bill is not an appropriate place to rework the devolution settlement put in place by the 1998 Act or the long-standing Sewel convention by making this House’s ability to legislate for local government pensions in Scotland subject to the Scottish Parliament’s consent.

Cathy Jamieson: The reason why we tabled the amendment is important. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said, concern has been expressed by the trade unions that the ability to make some of the regulations relating to the local government pension scheme in Scotland might change the relationship that had previously existed. We want to ensure that the existing practice is in the Bill and that there would be no change. That is what the amendment seeks to do.

Sajid Javid: I respect the hon. Lady’s intentions, but for the reasons that I set out, I do not believe the amendment is necessary. The situation as it stands is quite clear.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the Minister for giving way once again. In all the correspondence that has gone back and forth between the Scottish Government and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, did the Scottish Government at any stage ask for any amendments to be made to the Bill, either to clarify it or to give them further flexibility?

Sajid Javid: I have not seen all that correspondence, but to my knowledge the Scottish Government have not asked for any such amendments.
	On amendment 12, I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the defined benefit structure of the new schemes. I would hate to think that the hon. Member for Nottingham East is unaware of the 85,000 or so public service workers who are already members of the current career average schemes. His amendment, which he says is designed to reassure public service workers about the nature of their pensions, refers only to final salary schemes. I can reassure all public sector workers, including those currently in career average schemes, that the Government are fully committed to implementing the defined benefit schemes that have been negotiated. I assure the House, just as I assured the Committee, that the Government have no intention of replacing these defined benefit schemes with different types of scheme designs.
	There is no secret plot here. We have spent a long time in discussions with trade unions and member representatives to get where we are today. It would be foolhardy to throw away 18 months of work and do something
	entirely different. We do not intend to move away from defined benefit schemes in public services. Defined contribution schemes would not be the right kind of pension provision for many public servants.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister therefore meet with the War Graves Commission, because that looks as if it is planning to move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme?

Sajid Javid: If the commission would like to have a meeting with me, I would be happy to do so.
	However, we must not vilify defined contribution schemes either. There might be a small group of individuals who consider that their needs are better served by defined contribution schemes—for example, those spending a short time in public service roles who would prefer to use their employer contributions to maintain their existing defined contribution schemes. Approximately 7,000 people are already in that type of scheme by choice. There is nothing wrong with giving people such a choice. The Government believe that clause 7 already provides the right powers to allow the new defined benefit schemes to be set up while allowing alternatives types of scheme for those who want them.
	I turn to amendments 19 to 28 to clause 16. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East and others in Committee and this afternoon. We have provided reassurances on some of those concerns in correspondence. I hope that all hon. Members are now assured that the effect of the clause will not be to crystallise liabilities or to wind up any of the funded schemes. The amendments highlight those issues over which there are lingering doubts. As the hon. Gentleman set out, those relate to the extent and effect of the closure of the current schemes and the dates on which the changeover will take place.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I would like to thank the Minister for the clarity his letters provided on clause 16, which was helpful, because there was originally some confusion about that in the Bill.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and hope that I can provide further such reassurance on the clause this afternoon.
	Amendments 19 to 21 seek to provide that the reforms are made by replacing the existing regulations. The scheme regulations made under the Bill would therefore have to provide for both accrued rights and new service, which we do not believe is sensible. The hon. Member for Nottingham East has expressed concerns that the Bill, as drafted, could create two separate schemes and that that could create extra costs. The Local Government Association has further clarified its outstanding concern that members of existing schemes are treated as deferred members of the existing schemes when the new schemes are introduced. That is not our intention. We will look closely at that, with the Local Government Association and others, to see whether any changes are desirable or needed to put that beyond doubt.
	With regard to amendments 22 to 28, the purpose of clause 16 is to prevent benefits from being provided under existing terms in respect of a member’s service after the schemes are reformed. It closes the existing schemes, but only by closing them to future accrual.
	Clauses 4 and 5 already provide for existing and new arrangements for each work force to be managed and administered together. The old and new schemes will be administered by the same scheme manager, who will be assisted by the same pension board. From a member’s perspective, the transition between their old and new pension rights and the administration of their pensions will be seamless.
	The dates proposed in amendments 21 and 22 do not fit with the dates agreed for the reform of the schemes: 1 April 2014 for the local government schemes in England and Wales and 1 April 2015 for the other public service pension schemes. I appreciate that the date set out in clause 16(4)(b) might also look a little odd. It allows schemes that want to reform at the start of the public sector’s financial year—1 April—to do so while leaving the option open to make reforms at the start of the tax year instead.
	Although I remain convinced that the Bill will deliver what we want, I am aware that others believe that the dates are confusing. It is a concern that I will continue to consider. I regret to say that we cannot accept these amendments, because I am afraid that they would not work. However, they are clearly well intentioned and we can see what they are trying to achieve. As I said in Committee, we will continue to work through the outstanding concerns. I will reflect further on the amendments and we might return to the matter in the other place.
	I turn now to amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and others. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment; its purpose is clear but the practical effects would be fraught with problems. First, in England and Wales the appointed person will be reviewing the valuation and employer contribution rates of 89 separate pension funds. The appointed person will not know who the employee representatives are for each of those funds. The clause already requires the appointed person’s report to be published. That is the appropriate course of action. We envisage that the appointed person will publish a single report covering each and every one of the local authority funds. The Bill rightly requires that a copy is sent to the relevant authority and to the scheme managers, because those persons might need to take action as a result of the report.
	If the appointed person identifies a problem in a pension fund, under the Bill the scheme manager would be required to take remedial action. The Bill also allows the relevant authority to intervene if necessary. However, members and their representatives will not need to take any action. The management of local authority pension funds needs to be more transparent, and the clause achieves that. The information will be published and members, local authority residents, Parliament and others will be able to see and consider it. The amendment would add no value, but it would create unnecessary costs and burdens.
	I will now speak to amendments 7 and 8. I have already reassured the House that the Government have no intention of replacing the current defined benefit schemes with different scheme designs. Clause 7 allows the necessary flexibility for future Parliaments and pension scheme members to decide on the most appropriate
	pension scheme design for future generations of public service workers in the largest schemes. Clause 28 allows the same flexibility for the smaller public body schemes made under clause 28(7) or other powers. The Government expect that in most cases employees of the bodies listed in schedule 10 will join the reformed civil service pension scheme and have the same choice that civil servants have now: whether to join a defined benefit or a defined contribution scheme. The amendments would deny the employees of the other public bodies listed in schedule 10 that choice.

John McDonnell: The Minister, as ever, is being generous with his time. On amendments 7 and 8, his response will have a chilling effect for trade unions representing members across the piece, because the Government are not adhering to the direction of travel indicated in their assurances on the 25-year guarantee—that we were moving to defined benefit, not defined contribution schemes. Will the Government at least monitor the process and report back to the House, because I do not think that it is their will—it is certainly not the will they have displayed up to now—that there should be a flourishing of defined contribution schemes which would undermine defined benefit schemes?

Sajid Javid: I hope that I have made the Government’s commitment to defined benefit schemes very clear; I do not think I can make it any clearer than I have already from the Dispatch Box today. That commitment clearly has not changed.
	Finally, on amendment 32, I am confident that the Scottish Government can achieve the 2015 timetable. Even more importantly, I have no reason to believe that the Scottish Government share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). The Scottish Government’s Finance Minister, Mr John Swinney, has not requested that the Bill be amended to allow for a delay for implementation in Scotland. Indeed, such a delay would disadvantage lower and middle-income public service workers, who often benefit from a move to career average schemes. Furthermore, a delay in implementing the reforms would result in additional liabilities being built up in those schemes. These additional costs, running to hundreds of millions of pounds, would have to be paid for through the Scottish budget.

Eilidh Whiteford: Let me reiterate that I have no problem whatsoever with the move to career average schemes. Does the Minister accept, though, that this process has been subject to unnecessary prevarication and lack of clarity? In relation to amendment 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), does he accept that these proposals will roll back the existing provisions of the devolution settlement?

Sajid Javid: No, I do not. The Scottish Government have had plenty of time to look at the proposals, which originated with Lord Hutton’s report. They may feel that they should have acted earlier, but they clearly had control over that.

Cathy Jamieson: I heard the Minister say that the Scottish Government had not made any formal request to change the time scale, but the Finance Secretary referred to that in his speech in the Scottish Parliament when he indicated that he was not bringing forward a
	legislative consent motion. If the Scottish Government were to make such a formal approach, would the Minister, even at this late stage, be willing to consider amendments once the Bill moves elsewhere?

Sajid Javid: If the Scottish Government wanted to suggest any amendments, we would of course have a sensible discussion with them about that.
	Over the past year the Chief Secretary has written on a monthly basis to the Scottish Government about the public service pension reforms, and we have asked many times whether they would like to consider amending the Bill. They have not requested any such changes so far, and it would therefore be inappropriate to accept the amendment now.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the Minister think that nine days’ notice is sufficient time for the Scottish Government to be able to make those plans before the First Reading of the Bill?

Sajid Javid: As I said, virtually every month the Chief Secretary has written to the Scottish Government, and they have had plenty of opportunity to respond. As I said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), if, even at this stage, the Scottish Government wanted to suggest amendments, those amendments would be given serious thought in the other place.
	I commend Government amendments 35 to 39 to the House.

Christopher Leslie: I will start with the good news that the Minister is willing to concede the principle, if not the words, of new clause 2 on member communications. That is an important change of heart. We wanted annual benefit statements to be sent out proactively to members of defined benefit public service pension schemes, as they are for defined contribution schemes. We encountered a bit of resistance in Committee, but the Minister has thought again, particularly in the light of the views of the hon. Members for Bedford and for Finchley and Golders Green, and of many of my hon. Friends who made the same argument. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been persuaded of the spirit of the amendment. We do not get many victories for common sense in legislation, but this is one of them, and I pay tribute to him. It is a mark of distinction for him that we have managed to have him think afresh about the argument, reflect on it, and bring matters forward in the House of Lords. When our constituents receive these annual letters in the post, they can thank him for that extra information, as well as the hon. Members who have argued for it. [ Interruption. ] The letters may of course arrive online as well.
	The Minister did not say much about Government amendment 35, but that also feels like a famous victory. It means that existing members of final salary schemes in public bodies will definitely be able to stay in those schemes. We are sometimes grateful for small mercies in these legislative processes.
	I turn now to the less good news. I heard what the Minister said about our amendment 12, which would ensure that defined benefit schemes that have ended are
	superseded by new defined benefit schemes. It is a moot point, and we have our disagreements about it. I shall not press the amendment to a vote at this stage, although I am sure that the issue will be revisited in the other place.
	Amendments 19 to 22 relate to the closure of local government pension schemes and whether that means that they are really being closed or merely amended. We are worried about the potential for unintended adverse consequences in how the legislation is drafted. However, the Minister said that our amendments were well-intentioned, and that is good enough for me at this stage. They were, indeed, well intentioned and that is another issue that we will want to revisit in the other place.
	We have debated the question of devolved responsibilities and amendment 11, which would clear up some of the confusion, particularly in relation to applications by the Scottish Government for legislative consent motions. We feel strongly that there needs to be some clarification on the issue, but the Minister was helpful in saying that the Government want to consider it, so I shall not press that question, although it is very important.
	The new fair deal is a promise whereby existing members of public sector pension schemes will be allowed to retain their membership even if they are transferred or outsourced to the private sector, but we have still not received a commitment to that beyond Ministers’ verbal promises. The Minister has said that more work needs to be done, that they need to explore further the issues and that they do not want to pre-empt ongoing work, but that does not sound like the decision that we and many on the employee side thought had been made for a clear and unequivocal commitment to the new fair deal. It is integral to the deals that were agreed in the process leading up to this Bill. I cannot see what harm can be done by including the new fair deal in statute. It is a question of trust, so I want to press new clause 3 to a Division. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Fair deal

‘A member of a public service pension scheme is entitled to remain an active member of that scheme following—
	(a) the compulsory transfer of his contract of employment to an independent contractor; and
	(b) any subsequent compulsory transfer of his contract of employment.’.—(Chris Leslie.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 229, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Scheme regulations

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment 10,page2,line16, at end insert—
	‘(3A) Scheme regulations shall not make any provision which would have the effect of reducing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity, insofar as that amount is directly or indirectly referable to rights which have accrued (whether by virtue of service rendered, contributions paid or any other thing done) before the coming into operation of the scheme, unless the persons specified in subsection (3B) have agreed to the inclusion of that provision.
	(3B) The persons referred to in subsection (3A) are the persons or representatives of the persons who appear to the responsible authority to be likely to be affected by the regulations if they were made.’.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 3,page6,line27, in clause 10, at end insert—
	‘to be agreed with employee representatives’.
	Amendment 5,page11,line8, in clause 19, at end insert—
	‘with a view to reaching agreement’.
	Amendment 34,page11,line24, in clause 20, leave out from ‘—’ to ‘(b)’ in line 27 and insert—
	‘reach an agreement through consultation with the persons specified in subsection (3), and’.

Christopher Leslie: Clause 3 is an important part of the Bill, as it makes a series of arrangements for scheme regulations. Hon. Members will now be turning to page 2 in their copies; when they merrily flick through to it, they will discover that subsection (3)(c) states:
	“Scheme regulations may…make retrospective provision.”
	The theme of retrospectivity gives the Opposition great concern. Essentially, the Bill allows the reduction of accrued pension benefits.
	The measure is not qualified in any way: it allows all retrospective provisions, including, essentially, the reduction of the savings that people have put aside, which many regard as sacrosanct—the contributions from their monthly salaries or income into a pensions pot that is supposed to safeguard their financial future in retirement. We now discover that the Bill contains a provision that allows the Government to dip their hand into what are normally regarded as safe amounts of money—the accrued benefits for which people have paid in over their years of service. The Opposition believe that that breaches a central tenet of pension provision. Benefits that have been accrued are deferred earnings and should not be reduced. Retrospectively reducing accrued rights is essentially akin to taking back a portion of an employees’ wage that has already been paid; there is very little difference.
	Many hon. Members and many of my constituents find it difficult to resist the grey mist that descends and the heaviness of the eyelids that pensions law tends to bring about, but hon. Members should wake up and realise what is in the legislation. They should recognise that we are talking about the Government’s ability retrospectively to reduce the amounts that ordinary employees have saved for their retirement, which they believe are safe.
	Public sector workers and their representatives are extremely concerned about the retrospective powers that the Bill gives to this and any future Government. Understandably, they believe that as long as the Bill contains those powers, the pensions of ordinary working people—public sector employees—are not safe. On 29 October, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was asked about the retrospective provisions in subsection (3) by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The right hon. Gentleman replied that there was no need to be concerned about the reduction of accrued benefits, because the Bill mirrored the Superannuation Act 1972 in that respect. It is important to read out his exact words:
	“The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the clause to which he refers mirror directly those in the Superannuation Act 1972, which this Bill in many cases replaces. It was passed in the year I was born,”—
	in the year I was born too, but let me not digress—
	“and it has been used by a number of Governments to make adjustments to public service pensions.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 60.]
	The Chief Secretary went further than that when he gave one of those famous quotes—a bit like the George Bush “read my lips” quote—in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 20 June 2011. He said:
	“We will honour, in full, the benefits earned through years of service. No ifs, no buts.”
	Well, it turns out that the Bill does not mirror the Superannuation Act 1972 in relation to accrued benefits. The 1972 Act provides that accrued benefits can be reduced only with the consent of scheme members—in other words, only if members of those schemes, employees, agree to such retrospective arrangements—whereas the Bill allows for retrospective reductions without the consent of scheme members.
	Given that the Bill does not mirror the Superannuation Act protections in the way the Chief Secretary said it would, we can only assume that it must have been a drafting error by the Minister—perhaps some sort of oversight or typo. We are not sure why the Government did that. We tabled an identical amendment in Committee to ensure that the protections for accrued benefits in the 1972 Act were retained, but, surprisingly, our amendment was rejected. The Economic Secretary said that there was no need to mirror the protections in the 1972 Act, which prompts the question: why on earth did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say that the Bill contained certain protections when it obviously does not? It may be, as we have said, because the Chief Secretary is from a different political party from the Economic Secretary. We are not quite sure why the Chief Secretary said that it mirrors the Superannuation Act provisions, but this Minister, the Economic Secretary, resisted that arrangement.
	As we have said time and again, when employees in the public sector find themselves facing changes, without any consultation, to their contribution rates and radical changes to the valuation arrangements for their pensions, the question of trust comes up again and again. This Minister says, “Oh, don’t worry, we’re not going to use this provision on retrospectivity,” but when employees voice their doubts and say, “Hang on a minute. Why on earth are you putting it in the Bill?” we have to sympathise with them. They will be extremely sceptical of the Government’s motivations.
	We tabled the amendment to give the Minister another chance to include the protections that the Government—or at least one Minister—said were already in the Bill. When accrued benefits and retrospective changes were raised in Committee, the Minister did not dispute that the Bill allowed the Government unilaterally to reduce members’ accrued benefits, but he said repeatedly that the Government had promised not to reduce those accrued benefits. He said that that promise—a verbal promise—offered adequate protection to public service workers and that legislative protection was therefore unnecessary. That is an extraordinary argument. Even if this Government intend to keep their promise—that is a big “if”—their words will have no effect on a future Government, particularly a Conservative Administration. Surely the Government appreciate that, among the public, the level of trust in politicians and Ministers is low and that our request that they enshrine this protection in statute is a basic one.
	The Minister has previously spoken about not wanting to include certain commitments in legislation because to do so would bind future Governments. As I said, that is a specious argument, because future Governments can change laws if they so wish. They would not be bound by previous Government legislation, but they would have to make any changes openly and democratically through Parliament. That is the level of protection that public service workers rightly seek. This goes to the heart of trust and confidence. How can public service workers have any security in their future retirement if the Government at any point can retrospectively reduce the benefits they have already earned?

Lady Hermon: The Bill must, of course, be compatible with the European convention on human rights and the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on whether this retrospective provision on accrued property rights is compatible with the convention? Would it be in keeping with our commitments under the convention to take away property rights retrospectively and without compensation?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Lady has hit upon an important point. There are questions about whether it impinges on basic human rights to claw back retrospectively property—assets—that has been legitimately accrued, yet there is a provision here in the Bill to allow that to happen. Of course, Ministers could say, “Well, even though we’ve allowed for the possibility of retrospectivity, we’re not actually legislating for it now, although we might want to leave open the door to do it in the future.” That would be the point when it would impinge on the convention. She makes an incredibly important point. That is the extent of the possible outrage being left open in the Bill. All legislation is supposed to be signed off as being compatible with the ECHR, but that is a moot point and a matter of interpretation. She has focused on a crucial point.
	The explanatory notes state that clause 3(3) has been included to facilitate the necessary adjustments to
	“pension schemes to accommodate changes in law or where the government does not want to delay the benefit of a particular change but needs time to work out the consequences and appropriate method of making the change.”
	Amendment 10 would not necessarily hinder those technical operational issues. Given that it would retain clause 3’s intended purpose, as set out by the Minister, and that the Government have promised not to reduce accrued benefits, there can surely be no legitimate grounds for opposing the amendment.
	This is not an Opposition whim. We are cutting and pasting text from the Superannuation Act 1972: for 40 years, those provisions have protected the accrued benefits and rights of ordinary working people, and we are seeking to replicate those protections in the Bill. The amendment would not hinder or adversely affect the Government’s intentions, but would be of enormous benefit and reassurance to millions of public service workers. As the Minister knows, that concern arose extensively in Committee, where we debated the issue at length. I shall be grateful, therefore, if he reflects seriously on the strength of opinion voiced so far from across the spectrum—from employee representatives and others who want those safeguards enshrined in the Bill.

John McDonnell: Let me follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has just said, which relates to the previous debate. The running theme is trust. Every one of the trade union organisations that signed up to the deal or had it imposed upon them in the pensions dispute has expressed reservations about clause 3. That is why amendment 10 from our Front-Bench team seeks to address that matter.
	The logic is fairly straightforward, but let us get it on the record again. The Government promised a 25-year deal—a once-in-a-generation commitment that there would be no further reform of public sector pensions and that this would be guaranteed in legislation. However, clause 3—we had a discussion earlier about Henry VIII clauses—gives the Government extremely wide-ranging discretion, through the use of statutory instruments and all forms of delegated legislation, which, more importantly, includes the discretion to act retrospectively on what are clearly accrued pension rights over a long period. The saving grace, as presented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was that the same protection would be written into this Bill as is in the Superannuation Act 1972—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said—which is that no changes would be made without the consent of the employees’ representatives. Again, that provision, which was promised, is not in the Bill.
	What we now have in the Bill is the exercise of discretion, which breaks the commitment of the 25-year guarantee and does not even go as far as past legislative protection. The argument is that in future the Government will need the flexibility to introduce minor changes in legislation, without being impeded from making minor reforms or tidying things up. However, minor reforms or measures to tidy up the legislation—to reflect changed circumstances or change minor details of a scheme or pension arrangements—should be introduced by consent. Unions have never withheld that consent in past discussions about minor changes in pension provision. That has been the nature of the relationship between the Government and employee representatives up until now. This Bill breaks all that and undermines confidence not just in the Government’s commitments to date, but in their good will on this matter for the long term.
	My amendments 3, 5 and 34 relate to exactly the same issue of trust. I am trying in some way to establish further transparency and openness in the management of the future pension schemes that will be established. Amendment 3 relates to valuations, which we discussed in the previous batch of amendments. As I have said, valuations are critical to all those involved in a pension scheme, and certainly to employees who have contributed over the years. They will want to ensure that the valuation is done effectively, on professional terms and with their agreement. That is why my amendment 3 would amend subsection (3)(c) of clause 10, which deals with valuations. As set out in subsections (3)(a) to (3)(f), the Treasury directions under which valuations will take place will include
	“how and when a valuation is to be carried out”
	and
	“the time in relation to which a valuation is to be carried out”
	but more importantly,
	“the data, methodology and assumptions to be used in a valuation”.
	If we are to have real employee participation in a scheme, which involves the management of their money—their deferred pay—it is critical that they are fully involved in the valuation process and therefore that they are consulted and agree to the data, methodology and assumptions to be used. Otherwise, we will yet again undermine members’ confidence in the process of evaluating their own schemes. I do not understand why that is not in the legislation throughout. I hope that the Minister can assure us either that I have missed the mention of full employee involvement in the Bill or that he is willing to amend it accordingly.
	Let me turn to my amendments 5 and 34. Again, I just do not understand the drafting of the Bill. These proposals refer to the consultations that will be undertaken before scheme regulations are made. Again, this might seem like an esoteric point, but the scheme regulations are critical because they will determine the nature of the scheme under which the funds will be managed, contributions will be made and benefits will be paid. It is therefore critical that the regulations should be made following full consultation.
	In legislation of this kind, when consultations take place and schemes are drafted that are likely to affect their members, the form of words that is normally used includes
	“with a view to reaching agreement”.
	That intention is always set out in the legislation. Indeed, those exact words are used in clauses 20 and 22 of this Bill. Clause 20(2) states:
	“The responsible authority must…consult the persons specified in subsection (3) with a view to reaching agreement with them”.
	My amendment 5 would simply put that form of words into clause 19, so that when consultation took place, it would be done with the intent of reaching agreement. I do not understand why it was deleted from that clause in the first place. This is just another way of seeking to reassure the employees, the members of the pension schemes, that they will be fully involved in the process, and that the aim, in introducing any changes to the scheme, is to reach agreement and secure their consent whenever possible. This is not a contentious matter.
	I have also tabled amendment 34. An assurance has been given that there will be no further changes for a generation, or 25 years, that new schemes will come into force and that the vast bulk of them will, we hope, be defined benefit schemes, but the whole process involves the security of the elements of the schemes that the Government have guaranteed not to change. Those arrangements must be secured by agreement in the future. If those protected areas of the schemes, which the Government have until now guaranteed, are to change, there should not just be consultation with the employee representatives; there should be consultation with a view to reaching agreement. That consultation should have to secure that agreement. That would give the employees, the members of the pension scheme, the protection that they need, and the reassurance that nothing would be done to those protected areas of their pension without their agreement. Those areas include contributions and benefits.
	The whole ethos of the Bill fails to recognise that pensions are not solely in the ownership of the Government or the employing organisation, and that they are paid for by the employees over the years. Those who have
	paid into the schemes should therefore have a role in managing them. It is interesting that the Bill does not mention the representation of employees on the pension boards that are to be established. We should at least have a proper consultation process, and that process should involve some security that any changes, particularly to those guaranteed areas, should be achieved by agreement.
	I do not know of any other walk of life in which people contribute towards the funding of an organisation or a benefit without having a role to play in the management of it, or at least in the direction of policy. The Government are saying in the Bill that those who have paid vast sums into their pensions should have no say, no role and no entitlement to have their views sought or to have agreement reached. I hope that the Government will take on board some of the amendments and send out a message to the trade unions that represent the members of the pension schemes that yes, they do recognise their rights and they do want them to be fully involved. That full involvement would reassure those members of the Government’s good will and willingness to adhere to their commitment to a 25-year guarantee.
	I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). On the interpretation of the law as it stands and on the basis of the legal advice we have been given over some time, my view is that pension contributions develop accrued rights and that they are protected in European law. My view is that when the Government proceed at some time in the future to interfere or tamper with those accrued rights, there will be a legal challenge. I believe that the Government will lose it, and then—four, five or 10 years down the line—legislative changes resulting from the European Court decision would have to be brought back to Parliament. At that point in time, there will be a cost burden on the Exchequer to compensate those people who will have lost out as a result of the proposed Government changes.
	I believe that we should seek to avoid that, and the way to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East has said through his amendment, is to ensure that those accrued rights are protected and that the Government do not have a vast array of powers retrospectively to interfere in people’s pensions. We can also protect pensions by ensuring that employees are, through their trade unions, properly represented and consulted—and, yes, their consent sought—on any changes that the Government might want to make in the future.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) for tabling amendment 10, which gives us the opportunity to discuss member protections again. This is a serious issue, and although we had some long debates in Committee, it definitely bears revisiting. We have a duty to consider how best to protect the interests of scheme members.
	The Government have made a clear public commitment to protect the rights that people have built up in their current schemes. We have said clearly and on several occasions that past service in final salary schemes will not be affected by pension reform. The commitment to honour rights in old schemes is built into the Bill. The power in clause 3, to which the amendment pertains,
	could be used only for the purpose of setting up new schemes in scheme regulations or for transitional or consequential purposes.
	Secondly, there is the umbrella protection in UK general legislation that restricts state interference with personal possessions such as pension rights, unless such interference is lawful and proportionate. This protection of property rights is also an area of the European convention on human rights. This Bill is compatible with that convention. Of course, Ministers and others making scheme regulations are always bound to act in a way that is compatible with the law. This will prevent scheme regulations from proposing unlawful changes to protected pension rights.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early, but would he kindly explain for the benefit of the House the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg that allows him to say with such confidence that this Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights? What is the jurisprudence to support that contention?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that the hon. Lady is asking for clarity on this important question. When the Government put this Bill together, it was important, as with any measure, to make sure that it was compatible with existing legislation, including the European convention on human rights. I mentioned the issue here not to raise the issue of compatibility—of that I have no doubt—but to say that the convention provides protection for property rights. It represents another layer of protection that should reassure people that high hurdles would exist if any future Government tried for whatever reason not to honour the commitments made by this Government.

Christopher Leslie: I simply do not understand why the Minister refuses to put clearer unambiguous clarifications, protections and safeguards directly into the Bill. What is the purpose of leaving this as some sort of moot issue about whether there is sufficient jurisprudence to prove compatibility with umbrella protections in the European convention of human rights? That is not strong enough. The Minister must understand that people will be very anxious about this issue; why not clarify it and put it on the face of the Bill?

Sajid Javid: If the shadow Minister will allow me to continue my comments on this important issue, I shall, I hope, be able to give him some reassurance, but first I want to explain the reasons for the Government’s approach.
	Since the courts could set aside unlawful scheme regulations, responsible authorities have strong reasons to respect pension protection rights.
	There is a third reason for our approach. In order to provide the statutory protections that underpin our commitment on accrued rights, the Bill establishes a common set of member consent and consultation requirements. In the case of the new schemes set up under the Bill, any change in scheme regulations will require a prior, statutory consultation with all who are likely to be affected, or with their representatives.
	Clause 20 provides that if any changes are made that could have “significant adverse effects” on members, consultation must be conducted with a view to the reaching of an agreement, and preceded by a report to
	Parliament or the relevant legislature. Any such changes will require explicit approval by that legislature under the affirmative procedure. They cannot simply be nodded through under the nose of Parliament. Taken together, the rule of law and the specific provisions in the Bill should give members the strong reassurance that there is already a very high hurdle against unlawful interference with pension benefits that have been built up.
	As I have said, this is an important issue, and we must get it right. We are adamant that the application of universal consent locks is not an avenue that we intend to investigate. As a matter of principle, we do not believe that members, employers or anyone else should be given a ticket unreasonably to hold each other, or the Government, to ransom and to inhibit changes that are for the greater good. The Government feel strongly that it is right to prevent that scenario from occurring in the future, and that is why we cannot support the amendment.
	Most retrospective changes in accrued rights are either minor and technical, or in the interests of the vast majority of scheme members. As I have said, however, it is vital that we strike the appropriate balance between member protections and the efficient operation of public service schemes. Although I firmly believe that the provisions in the Bill achieve that balance, I can tell the House that the Government do not have a closed mind on this serious issue, which has been raised thoughtfully by Members on both sides of the House, both today and in Committee. I can only reiterate that we are listening and do not have a closed mind. I am sure that the issue will be discussed in the other place, and we shall listen carefully then as well. I hope that, in the light of the reassurances that I have tried to give, the shadow Minister will consider withdrawing his amendment.
	Amendment 3 would place a statutory requirement on the Government to seek the agreement of employee representatives when the data, methodology and assumptions to be used in pension scheme valuations is set. I agree that we must get those elements of the valuations right. We must be sure that a valuation accurately calculates the scheme’s costs. I understand that Members want to be certain that the Government will honour their commitment to ensure that stakeholders are involved in the process, and I can tell the House that they will be so involved.
	I believe that the amendment is both unnecessary and unworkable. It is unnecessary because we have already made it clear that the Government will engage with stakeholders over the directions on valuations. Transparency and consultation are extremely important principles, and it is important for everyone to have a say in how the valuation process works, but that does not mean that we will allow the whole process to be stymied by a very small group of people. That would hardly be democratic, let alone a rational way in which to proceed, and it would mean that the employer contributions would not be set at the correct rate. I am sure that that was not the intention of Members when they tabled these amendments, but we think it right for discussions about the valuation process to take place within the normal scheme governance procedures. I am also sure that in the normal course of events the vast majority of the discussions will prove to be sensible and constructive, resulting in broad consensus between all parties. I hope Opposition Members recognise that if the worst happens and the talks break down
	without a full meeting of minds, it is important that, where necessary, the Government can make the final decisions.
	On amendment 5, I understand why Opposition Members want to ensure there is meaningful consultation with scheme members before scheme regulations are made, and clause 19 requires precisely that. All scheme consultations on regulations will be conducted in line with the Government’s consultation principles, as set out by the Cabinet Office. As they make clear, the Government are committed to consulting on our proposals and to ensuring consultations are carried out proportionately. Clause 19 as currently drafted provides for a good and comprehensive consultation standard. It also recognises the genuine interests of the members and employers in how their scheme is run.
	The clause ensures that whenever a change is proposed to the scheme regulations, the responsible authority must consult everyone whom the authority considers to be affected. Since this will be a statutory consultation, the authority must set out clearly on each occasion the matters on which it is consulting. It must provide enough information and time to allow for considered responses. The authority also needs to keep an open mind until the consultation has closed, and must give fair and proper consideration to those responses before making its final decision. It is worth setting all of that out in detail in order to reassure those who might feel clause 19 does not provide for meaningful consultation; on the contrary, it does precisely that.
	Moreover, there are many reasons why the Government may wish to consult scheme members and other stakeholders when making scheme regulations. In many cases the Government will consult with a view to reaching an agreement for proposed changes. Clause 19 as drafted does not prevent that. As the Government have made clear, the enhanced consultation standard should apply to some elements of the scheme, and they are specified in clause 20. It is not necessary to extend this provision to cover every other possible element of scheme design.

John McDonnell: I am not trying to be obstreperous, but in a former life I drafted this stuff, so I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary clarified why the phrase
	“with a view to reaching agreement”
	is in clause 20 but not in clause 19, because I consider the scheme regulations and the aspects addressed in clause 20 to be of equal importance?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman has approached this issue in a very thoughtful way. We consider that the high hurdle of
	“with a view to reaching agreement”
	should not apply to every scheme change that might need to be made. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a different view about when it should apply, but I think I have made the Government’s case clear.

Lady Hermon: The Economic Secretary has elaborated at great length on clause 19. My concern, however, is that clause 20 refers to consultation
	“with a view to reaching agreement”,
	rather than until consultation is reached. If agreement is not reached, what will happen? Will the changes be imposed on workers, in which case consultation will merely be an exercise and a formality?

Sajid Javid: The requirement of
	“with a view to reaching agreement”
	is a high hurdle. I cannot remember the phrase the hon. Lady used, but I can say that the requirement is not a tokenism of any kind—it is a genuine commitment. It is in clause 20, so where this is required it is a clear commitment that the Government will have to honour. The second part of her question was about what would happen if an agreement was not reached. I hope that such situations would be rare, but it is clear that if an agreement could not be reached the Government would have to make the final decision, as is absolutely right.
	Amendment 34 gives me the opportunity to discuss the rationale for the inclusion of the provisions in clause 20. On a number of occasions the Government have stated their belief that the package of pension reforms that the Bill helps to implement represents a settlement for a generation—a deal that should last 25 years or more. The provisions in clause 20 are intended to deliver on that promise by putting in place a high bar for any future Government who might wish to amend any of the core elements of the new schemes. The clause also extends these protections to instances where the responsible authority proposes to make retrospective changes that will have significant adverse effects in relation to members of the schemes.
	As we have discussed, the clause requires consultation
	“with a view to reaching agreement”.
	Such a provision goes further than the already thorough consultation requirements set out in clause 19, which we have just discussed. Clause 19 requires consultation on every change to scheme regulations with all interested parties. That consultation must be carried out in good faith and with an open mind. The courts have shown no hesitation in holding the Government to the high standards required by a statutory consultation of the kind required in clause 19.
	By making it clear that the consultation under clause 20 should be undertaken
	“with a view to reaching agreement”,
	the Government are making a legislative commitment about how such consultations should be carried out. The clause requires consultation to be conducted in a manner conducive to reaching an agreement. A Government will also have to report to Parliament on the actions they wish to take, having due regard to the desirability of not making changes to the protected elements. The amendment seeks to go further than that, by making it compulsory for the Government to obtain agreement from members or their representatives before such a change could be made—the very scenario that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) just raised. On the very rare occasions that these elements may require amendment, it is important that the Government should consult and work with members to ensure that the best outcomes for all involved can be
	achieved. However, it would be entirely wrong for individual trade unions or members to be able to prevent reform should it be in the interest of the vast majority of members.

Christopher Leslie: I have great sympathy with many of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made. He has tabled a series of amendments and has highlighted a couple of appropriate points. He seeks to pin down what happens in respect of changes that affect data, methodology, assumptions and valuations. Those are the long-grass details that many people often put in the box marked, “Too difficult to handle”. However, it is really important that people realise that a tweak here or a change there to the way in which some pension metrics are defined can seriously affect the retirement incomes of hard-working public sector employees. So he is right to shine a bit of a spotlight on those areas. I am not necessarily sure about his drafting, but he has brought an important proposition to the House’s attention. Similarly, he raised some issues we debated in Committee, such as why certain parts of the Bill talk about consultation being done in the way that many of our constituents have become used to—as a cynical box-ticking exercise. There is consultation, but most people have, sadly, grown used to the notion that consultation in that context means a form being sent out that they can send back if they want to, which Ministers will just ignore when it comes back.
	Ministers then say that they will have a special enhanced consultation process, which means that it is done with a view to reaching agreement. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pointed out, even in an enhanced consultation process there is no guarantee that agreement will be reached. It is difficult to know how anybody participating in that consultation would enforce the process, but that consultation is the so-called protection in the protected elements of the Bill. In a sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is debunking a lot of the differentiation between consultation and enhanced consultation.

John McDonnell: I have not seen this before, but we now have two types of consultation. The first is, “We’re consulting you because we hope you agree with us,” and the other is, “ We’re consulting you but we couldn’t care what you say to us.” Amendment 34 is simply trying to protect the Government, so that they can demonstrate that they are adhering to their promised level of consultation.

Christopher Leslie: I suppose it is a case of diet consultation—or consultation-lite—versus full-fat consultation, which I know that my hon. Friend would be far more keen to see. I think he has done the House a service by casting some light on those issues, but I hope he will forgive me if I focus mostly on amendment 10 and the issue of retrospectivity, which is, ultimately, to me one of the worst aspects of the Bill.
	I am glad that the Minister said that the Government have an open mind on retrospectivity—at least, he said that they do not have a closed mind, which is a similar thing. We hope for great things in the other place when the question is considered. He gave a set of reasons: a court might come along and set aside scheme regulations
	or there might be technical reasons for raiding people’s accrued savings and pension benefits retrospectively. I must say to the Minister, however, that when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—for it was he—promised “No ifs, no buts” and said that he did not want that retrospectivity, not to have put that particular provision clearly and explicitly in the Bill is a major failing that will leave many employees with a sour taste in their mouths. They want some pretty basic protections to stop the notion of clawback and the ability of Ministers to sequester savings that they thought were safe—the deferred wages they have set aside for their long-term well-being.
	We need to ensure that we focus on the confidence of employees in the scheme, as this is their property too, as my hon. Friend pointed out. It is not just the preserve of the Government; they are not simply giving out a pension as though it were a state pension scheme or however they wish to characterise it. These pensions are a joint endeavour between employees and employers and that is why we have said that the Superannuation Act 1972 protections need to be transposed into the Bill. The provision, derived from that Act, states:
	“Scheme regulations shall not make any provision which would have the effect of reducing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity, insofar as that amount is directly or indirectly referable to rights which have accrued”.
	The protection we need is very straightforward and we wanted to put it into our amendment. The Minister needs to go back and think about this again, as it is a signal issue that is at the core of the trust we need to have in the scheme. We want the scheme to work and we want members to stick with it and not opt out, but they need to know that their money and their savings are safe. That is why I would like to test the opinion of the House on amendment 10 by pressing it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 281.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Pension age

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment 13,page5,line21, after ‘age’, insert ‘or deferred pension age’.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 29,page5,line21,after ‘section 1’, insert
	‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.
	Amendment 2,page5, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert
	‘65, or current pension scheme age if lower’.
	Amendment 1,page5,line27, at end insert—
	‘(d) prison officers and psychiatric nurses.’.
	Amendment 14,page5,line28, after ‘age’, insert ‘or deferred pension age’.
	Amendment 30,page5,line28, after ‘section 1’, insert
	‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.
	Amendment 9,page5,line28, leave out ‘must be 60’ and insert ‘shall be set out in scheme regulations but must be no more than 60’.
	Amendment 16,page5,line29, at end insert—
	‘(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply in relation to any category of public service worker as the Secretary of State may by order specify following the publication of a scheme specific capability review.’.
	Amendment 15,page5,line30, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 31,page5,line30, after ‘section 1’, insert
	‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.
	Amendment 33,page19,line25, clause 33, at end insert—
	‘“Scottish scheme” means a scheme for the payment of pensions to persons specified in paragraphs (c) to (g) of section 1(2) in respect of service in Scotland;’.

Christopher Leslie: We turn now to the part of the Bill relating to pension age. Let me first deal with what we think are drafting anomalies, with which we deal in amendments 13 to 15. Following our further scrutiny of the Bill after the Committee stage, we have noticed a potential anomaly on which we hope the Minister can reflect. There are to be some exemptions in the link between the retirement ages set out in public sector pension schemes and the state pension age arrangements. They are set out in clause 9(2) on page 5 of the Bill—I know that hon. Members are following this avidly—and relate to a person’s normal pension age under the scheme. The clause does not refer, however, to their deferred pension age, which means that the exemptions apply only to active members of pension schemes and not to those who have moved on from their occupation and are classified as deferred members.
	The Bill will introduce increased pension ages, but clause 9 as drafted could lead to significant unfairness for some members of the fire brigade, the police and the armed forces, because, under the state pension age arrangement, those specified protected occupations will not be tied to the normal pension age. For example, a firefighter might decide to leave the fire brigade at the age of 58 because he or she feels physically unable to continue until 60, not necessarily due to any specific health problem, but simply due to their increasing age. They will then become a deferred member of the pension scheme, so they will not be entitled to receive the full pension until they reach the state pension age. That is a significant gap, so we think that the amendments are necessary to prevent unintended unfairness. Any extra costs resulting from such changes would need to be fully managed as part of the cost-cap mechanism. Our proposal would not add a burden to the Exchequer, but it would address a potential anomaly in the Bill. The Minister will, therefore, understand why we have tabled amendments 13, 14 and 15. I hope that this is a drafting error and I invite him to reflect further on it.
	The Minister will not be surprised to learn that it is amendment 16 that most represents our ongoing anxieties about clause 9 and the problems with the link between the state pension age and an array of public sector employees whom we are asking to work for a considerable length of time. It needs to be said that, with life expectancies increasing, it is right to ask public sector employees to work longer before drawing their pensions. We do not disagree with that. Reforms to the age at which public sector workers retire are necessary if pension schemes are to remain sustainable, which, of course, is in everybody’s best interests. As such, we broadly agree that the normal retirement age for public sector workers should be linked to the state pension age. However, we have serious concerns about the inflexible way in which the Bill has been drafted and how it deals with exemptions to the state pension age.
	The Government have understood that certain workers in physically demanding professions are not able to work past a certain age, regardless of their increasing life expectancy. As such, the Bill fixes the retirement age at 60 for fire and rescue workers and for members of the police force and the armed services. So far, so good, but my point is that those are not the only public sector workers with physically demanding jobs, and that is where the debate now takes us.

Richard Fuller: To press the hon. Gentleman on his point, he has made the assertion—it may be a fact—that the sole criterion for the exemption of these professions from the normal retirement age is the physicality of the job, but does he accept that there are other differences between those types of public sector workers and others and that that might be why they have been given a different retirement age?

Christopher Leslie: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to; perhaps he should elaborate. The Minister has not said that there are considerations other than the physically demanding nature of being a firefighter, a police officer or a member of the armed forces. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there are different categories of public sector workers beyond some of those physical issues?

Richard Fuller: I will clarify my view, although I cannot speak for the Government. One criterion that differentiates these workers, other than physicality, is that they put themselves in danger in their public service, perhaps not routinely, but as an important aspect of their work. A firefighter will run into a burning building to rescue someone, a member of the police force will stop altercations and put themselves in physical danger, and members of our armed forces routinely put their lives on the line for our country. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is an important point of differentiation and that it is not just to do with physicality, which is the basis for amendment 16?

Christopher Leslie: While I do not disagree about the bravery of those in the professions listed in the Bill, I counsel the hon. Gentleman against taking the prescriptive view that only those categories of employee are engaged in brave acts or in risky professions. I accept that there are risks that go beyond the question of physicality, but there are other professions where the distinction is not as black and white as the Bill makes out. Mental health workers often take significant risks in the course of their duties, for example if they have to restrain patients. Prison officers are often in dangerous situations. Paramedics, hospital porters and others also have very physically demanding duties. There are gradations of physicality and risk.
	My point is that there is an anomaly in the legislation, because one cannot be quite as prescriptive as to set out in the Bill particular classes of job and suddenly regard all others as not involving the same level of physicality or risk. I will not say that there are 50 shades of grey, but there are certainly gradations.

Nick Gibb: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman to address the conundrum with which he is challenging himself by referring him to the Hutton report, which the Bill is implementing. I refer him to one of the shaded boxes that I know he is very keen on. Recommendation 14 states that the exception to linking the normal pension age to the state pension age should be
	“in the case of the uniformed services where the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved.”
	Hutton also states that the uniformed services are in a different position because their current pension age is 55 or less. That is another key reason why there is a different normal pension age for the uniformed services, which Hutton specifically lists as
	“the armed forces, police and firefighters”.

Christopher Leslie: I do not deny the important role that is played by the professions listed in the Bill. What I am saying is that it is not as simple as saying that all other professions should therefore be exempt from considerations about the physicality of their endeavours. One could argue that prison officers, being a sort of uniformed service, have cause to have such protections. My point is that it is inconsistent and unfair to make exceptions for some workers in physical roles and not others. It is by no means clear that 60 is the appropriate age for all firefighters, police and Army personnel, when some of them undertake such demanding physical activity. There is no room in the Bill to make further exceptions to the state pension age link or to respond to any review that makes recommendations about the appropriate retirement age for firefighters, the police or Army personnel. Members who served on the Committee will recall that we cited the working longer review in the national health service, which was set up by Government Members. There is also an ongoing review of the working age in the fire service.

Mark Reckless: Is the hon. Gentleman’s argument on the basis of physicality collapsing? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said, three professions routinely place themselves in danger much more significantly than other professions. They currently have significantly lower pension ages, so it would be hugely unfair, a cliff edge and very disproportionate, to seek to increase their pension age to 65 or 68 as in other professions.

Christopher Leslie: That is why amendment 16, which I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at, does not prescribe different pension ages for different categories of worker. We are looking only to give power to the Secretary of State, who
	“may by order specify following the publication of a scheme specific capability review”,
	to allow disapplication in relation to categories of public service worker for provisions in clause 9(1).
	If reviews are ongoing—the Government have undertaken the working longer review in the national health service, and the fire service review—we must ensure almost as an issue of drafting that any conclusions of those reviews can be enacted and reflected in legislation, if the Secretary of State agrees. That is the extent of the amendment; it would simply ensure that if there are technical reviews into the capability of certain classes of employee, the Government will be able to create exemptions from any arrangement. That is why the amendment is narrowly defined. I accept there is a theoretical or philosophical argument about risk and physicality, but to return to the practicalities of our arrangements, we must look at how the legislation is drafted. That is our duty as a loyal Opposition.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He may regard the amendment as narrow, but I regard it as a broad generalisation that seeks to introduce uncertainty in an otherwise specific Bill. If his
	principle of physicality is an important test for public sector pensions, is it also an important test for private sector pensions or the state retirement age?

Christopher Leslie: If a private sector scheme rules to make its own arrangements, it has the flexibility to do so. We are simply saying that in future, some degree of latitude and flexibility should be placed in statute to allow Secretaries of State to take account of the outcome of any reviews. We are not saying there should be a requirement for exemptions to be made; we want to give the Secretary of State the power to implement the findings of any reviews should that be deemed fit.

Mike Freer: I sometimes feel as if I am on the wrong side of the Chamber for this Bill, but perhaps I may help regarding the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). The private sector does recognise physicality for those such as steeplejacks, chimney sweeps and jockeys who have a significantly lower retirement age. I hope that is helpful to the shadow Minister.

Christopher Leslie: If only we had been talking about jockeys when the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) was in the Chamber; he would have found that helpful intervention most interesting. My respect for the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) grows by the minute and I am grateful for that interjection.
	The key point is whether the reviews can find their course into effect. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly stressed that the working longer review for NHS staff was
	“not in any way looking at the link between the normal pension age and the state one.”
	Instead he said that it was,
	“considering the implications of working longer for NHS staff,”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 327-8.]
	That seems a slightly contradictory statement. Linking the normal pension age to the state pension age means that people will work longer, and therefore the review will look at the effect on the state pension age link for NHS workers.
	The terms contained in the Department of Health document, “Reforming the NHS Pension Scheme for England and Wales” include the following objectives for the working longer review:
	“Identify any categories of worker for whom an increase in Normal Pension Age would be a particular challenge in respect of safe and effective service delivery and consider how this may be addressed;
	Identify any categories of worker for whom an increase in Normal Pension Age would be a particular challenge in respect of their health and wellbeing.”
	If that NHS review concludes that a higher normal pension age is inappropriate for certain categories of worker, either because working longer would be physically damaging or because it could lead to unsafe practices in the NHS, the current Bill would not allow those workers to be exempt from the state pension age link in clause 9. I therefore contend that it is irresponsible to make legislation before the findings of the Government’s review are published, without allowing the legislation to accommodate some or all of that review’s recommendations.
	Given that the working longer review was a key component of the agreement reached between health service workers and their employers, it is unfair to fetter the recommendations that the review can realistically make. It is similarly inappropriate and unfair to fix the retirement age for firefighters at 60 when the working longer review in the fire service is yet to report.
	This is an incredibly important issue. I accept that we must note that the cost-cap mechanism in the Bill would ensure that any extra costs of the extra exemptions to the state pension age link will need to be met by the scheme—the Opposition are not saying that the additional costs should fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer—but bearing that in mind and the fact that the clause does not require the Secretary of State to make exemptions, the amendment simply allows flexibility. I cannot see how the Government can object to it.

Nick Gibb: Before hon. Members speak to other amendments in the group, may I refer the hon. Gentleman to the proposed final agreements? I have in front of me the one that applies to teachers pensions, but it is similar to other schemes. It states:
	“Actuarially fair early/late retirement factors on a cost-neutral basis”
	will apply in the agreement. That means that teachers can take early retirement if they wish. If the normal pension age is above 65, they will have an early retirement factor of 3% per year for up to three years. People can therefore take early retirement with a small actuarial reduction in the pension. That deals with the problems the hon. Gentleman describes.

Christopher Leslie: With the greatest respect, that does not deal with the problems, because there is a difference between the early retirement benefits to which an employee is entitled and those they can get at the normal pension age as defined in scheme regulations. The Government set up working groups and committees in the NHS, fire services and services throughout the country. Those groups have been given terms of reference, but now discover that they cannot implement their findings because of a drafting anomaly in this Bill. All the Opposition are asking is that the Government think again about how the scheme capability reviews come to fruition. This ought not to be a partisan point. I am simply seeking to ensure that we have flexibility in the legislation.
	Others will want to speak to the amendments in the group that they have tabled, but I strongly urge the House to support amendment 16.

Mike Freer: I said in an intervention that I had some interesting views on the Opposition’s stance. I have sympathy with the thrust of the amendments, but I assure the Minister that it does not extend to voting for them.
	Our starting point on the retirement age must be the demographic pressures we face. UK National Statistics data show that in 2008, males were expected to live to 78.1 years and females to 82.1 years, yet by 2011, life expectancy had jumped to 90.3 years for men and to 93.8 years for women, and we could expect to pay almost as many pension cheques as pay cheques. One of my reasons for supporting the linkage—in the main—
	between public sector pension schemes and the state retirement age is that there is a huge gap between the contribution rates of the employer and employee and what is drawn out as a pension.
	The NHS pension scheme tiered employee contributions data, which are published by the NHS, show that the employer pays about 14% and the employee about 8.5%. My rudimentary maths leads me to conclude that 22.5% goes in. Members who took part in the Bill Committee evidence sessions will remember the British Medical Association’s interesting contribution, not least because the BMA said that doctors should pay less and the lowest-paid should pay more for their pensions. The BMA confirmed that the average pension out in the NHS was 49%, so if the contribution rates are putting in only 22.5%, but 49% is coming out, that 26.5% gap has to be covered from somewhere, and it is being funded by the taxpayer. If that taxpayer gap is going to grow because of the demographic time bomb—people are retiring at the same age, but living longer and drawing pensions longer—it will start to be completely unsustainable, undermining the public sector pension schemes in total. That is why the Government are right to link the normal pension age with the state retirement age.
	As I said, I have some sympathy with the thrust of the amendments. I acknowledge that the Government have gone some way to recognise the physicality of the work of the police, the fire service and the armed forces by having a lower retirement age of 60. However, I gently ask the Minister to revisit the impact of the physical nature of some of the roles within those categories, although not all the roles, because there is a huge difference between a police officer on the beat, in a territorial support group or in the computer-aided dispatch call centre.
	On Saturday, I met one of my constituents, who is a sergeant in the local territorial support group. He is 42 years old and physically very fit. He explained that his job involves being the guy at the sharp end outside the gates of Parliament when we have serious disorder. He is the guy in full riot gear who has to wade into civil disobedience. He is the guy who goes in the front door when the police have to go in and arrest a violent criminal. The physicality of that job requires him and his colleagues to pass tests to ensure that they are physically up to the job. There are two tests in particular, and one is called the bleep test. Anybody who goes to a gym may know that this is where one has to run faster and faster to get between two points before the bleep cuts one off. On top of that, the sergeant explained that he has to do a shield test, which is where he and his colleagues, in full riot gear, have to be able to run 1 km in not more than six minutes. He explained to me that that, at his age, he is getting towards the limit of his physicality. Expecting a sergeant in the TSG to be able to pass the bleep test or a riot shield run in six minutes or less for 1 km at the age of 59 is perhaps asking too much.
	I am reasonably fit, but I have 10 years on the sergeant. I have accepted the challenge of doing the shield run—of trying to run 1 km in not more than six minutes in full riot gear. Perhaps the Government and Opposition Front Benchers would like to join me. If they
	are keen to take up the challenge, I will happily arrange it. Both the Minister and the shadow Minister have 10 years on me as well.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Whips, of course, are entitled to take part—they might enjoy dressing up with the truncheon.
	On the question of physicality, I am not suggesting that the Government have got it wholly wrong. I am suggesting that if, at some point in the future, we have empirical evidence that such physicality has an impact on those particular jobs, the Minister—I am sure he is rushing off to check the data—might revisit the rules to see if that physicality can be reflected in those specific roles within those specific categories.

Bill Esterson: Many years ago I took the bleep test and I can only describe its physical demands as a form of hell. The hon. Gentleman is right about the demands on the police, but what about other public sector workers? It has been put to me by nursery staff, school staff who work with small children, nurses and other NHS staff that they have very physically demanding jobs. Their jobs are not as potentially violent as the job he has just described, but they are demanding. Does he accept that we need to look carefully at the impact on those people too?

Mike Freer: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not rule out the possibility where there is empirical evidence that people’s ability to work and progress is affected by the physicality of that profession. One difficulty is that those in some of the roles described in the Bill will have limited opportunities to move into other less physical roles. That is another consideration. If there are roles in the NHS where the physicality affects people’s ability to perform that role and where no other avenues are available to them, that is a fair point, but in most roles there will be opportunities to move into less physically demanding roles. Unfortunately, in the armed forces, police and fire service, there are limited opportunities to move out of front-line roles. It is the House’s duty to protect those who protect us.

Mark Reckless: People are living longer and many, albeit not all, are remaining fitter for longer. It is suggested that we amend the Bill to enlarge those categories in the public sector, but what about those in the private sector—people who work in private sector nurseries, for example—who face exactly the same issues as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) just raised?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but if he revisits some of the private sector schemes, he will find that they rely on actuarial and physical evidence provided by various medical boards, and that the retirement age in certain private sector schemes already reflects the physical demands of certain roles. In an intervention, I mentioned, rather light-heartedly, people such as steeplejacks and jockeys, but there are other roles whose physical demands are reflected in certain private sector pension schemes, which already have mechanisms in place.

Richard Fuller: Does my hon. Friend not accept that those pension schemes are fundamentally different from the types we are debating? The former tend to be defined contribution schemes rather than defined benefit
	schemes. Does that not have an impact on the flexibility of those schemes and their ability to take account of those issues?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He knows my views and is tempting me down the path of debating the future of defined benefit schemes. I have been entirely consistent on this point: for many years, I have said that all defined benefit schemes are no longer sustainable, whether in the private sector or public sector. That is a debate for another time and is certainly not pertinent to the amendment, but I share his view that perhaps we need more wholesale change and a larger debate.
	In supporting specific exemptions where physical demands can be proven, I am not undermining the broad thrust of ensuring that our public sector pensions are sustainable. I have long argued that the contribution rates of both employee and employer do not match: what goes in does not match what comes out. That has driven my long-held view that defined benefit schemes are no longer fit for purpose. Having said that, this Bill is a major step forward in making sure that our public sector pensions are sustainable. We have a duty, however, to protect those who protect us and we ought to revisit this point where there is hard empirical evidence that physicality, in certain roles within those categories, can be proven to be detrimental to people’s health after retirement. I am not suggesting that I will support the amendment, but I am urging my ministerial colleagues to revisit the matter.
	I have rehearsed at length the point about physicality. I am sad that the Minister is no longer with us, but I hope that he will address that point when he winds up. Should empirical evidence emerge, I hope that we can revisit this subject.

Ian Lavery: I want to refer, in particular, to my amendment 1. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) very interesting indeed. I certainly agree with a range of points he made.
	The amendment seeks to place two additional occupations into the Bill, and they have been mentioned on both sides of the Chamber. They are those of prison officer and psychiatric nurse. Clause 9(2) lists the three occupations to be enshrined in the legislation as exemptions from subsection (1)—they have been discussed by various Members and there seems to be some agreement—which are
	“fire and rescue workers who are firefighters…members of a police force, and…members of the armed forces.”
	I fully support people working in those occupations and the courageous work they do on a regular basis. I fully understand why they are included in the Bill and support their inclusion, but for the very same reasons I wish to amend the Bill to include prison officers and psychiatric nurses.
	It is widely accepted that prison officers and psychiatric nurses have to deal with some of the most dangerous, dysfunctional and disruptive people in society on an almost daily basis. Expecting these categories of worker to work above the age 65 is totally and utterly unjustified; in fact, when we look at it in great detail, the decision seems absolutely outrageous. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) mentioned a
	constituent of his, a very fit police officer from the territorial support unit who explained exactly how he kept himself in peak fitness to do his job. We cannot expect people in the Prison Service to be grappling with prisoners at the age of 65 and above, but the Bill as it stands would allow that.
	Currently, prison officers regularly have to take five different tests: a grip strength test, an endurance and fitness test, a dynamic strength test, an agility test and a static shield hold test. If a prison officer fails any of those tests, they fail the entire health and fitness test. The current regime is therefore rather stringent. If clause 9 is agreed to unamended, it will mean many prison officers and psychiatric nurses either dying in service or retiring on ill health grounds and not having a very healthy lifestyle thereafter.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is doing a fine job of explaining the concern of people who work in the Prison Service or in psychiatric health. Ashworth hospital and HM Prison Kennet are in my constituency, and people working at both have expressed exactly those concerns to me. Does he think that, as well as potentially leading to damaged health and increased disability, the Bill will discourage people from entering the Prison Service and that part of the NHS?

Ian Lavery: That is absolutely right. When anybody looks to take up a new employment opportunity, they look at a whole array of things. The public sector is changing by the day—although the Prison Service and the NHS now involve not just the public sector, but the private sector. People look at how their pensions will end up and what the pensionable age is, which we have also been discussing this afternoon. That is a huge consideration for many people who want to choose their profession early on in life. This measure will put people off becoming prison officers.
	I know a lot of prison officers and psychiatric nurses, and they are very committed people. They come to see me in my surgery and they say, “Mr Lavery, I am 50. How am in going to manage to do this job in 15 years’ time?” The measures in the Bill mean that they would have to do just that. We need to scrutinise this. We cannot have people over 65 years of age doing that kind of work. It is absolutely nonsensical. I really hope that we can reach an agreement today to look at that situation again.
	An added problem in the prison service is that the work force are growing older, because the prospect of doing the job does not excite people any more, and the prison population is getting not only younger but more dangerous. Violence is on the increase, and an average of eight prison officers are assaulted every day of every week. Not long ago, it was recognised that prison staff had a life expectancy of only 18 months after retirement, yet the Bill gives them no consideration. The Government have still not provided any evidence that front-line prison staff could work in an operational role over the age of 65, yet they are still considering that option.

Lady Hermon: May I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to remind the House that prison officers in Northern Ireland also run a particularly grim risk? After a gap of almost 30 years, a prison officer, David Black, was murdered recently in rush-hour traffic on a busy motorway on his way to work. Prison officers in Northern Ireland run an additional risk. It is an absolute disgrace that prison officers are not exempted in clause 9.

Ian Lavery: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Prison officers in Northern Ireland have had a particular problem with security for decades. They have the same security problem here, although it is definitely not as bad as the problem experienced during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, prison officers put their neck on the block at all times. I have been out socialising with members of the Prison Officers Association when they have been approached by ex-convicts. They were out having a decent time, and those people were coming up to them. They addressed the prison officers very politely, but I have to say that they looked rather strange. I would not want them coming to talk to me. We need to look at the security of the people who work in the Prison Service. As I have said, we need to protect those people.
	The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that members of the police force were highly trained, and that they needed shields and other forms of protection. He said that they were out on the front line when there were problems, and that they would get stuck in to try to resolve them. Prison officers and psychiatric nurses do that on almost a daily basis, and it is not very pleasant for them. There are also problems in the Prison Service and the health service, when prisoners are not only violent but spit in people’s faces and when blood is thrown at people’s faces causing all sorts of distress.
	It is common sense to try to ensure that prison officers and psychiatric nurses are added as part of the exemption under clause 9(2), just as we rightly wish to protect police officers in their daily duties. Our brave armed forces and our firefighters are other examples, so we should look to protect the prison officers and psychiatric nurses, whose duty is solely to protect us, in the same way.
	I will not press my amendment to the vote, as I do not want to divide the House. Should I say that we are too conciliatory on this issue, and should I say that Members of all parties seem to agree—albeit to different degrees—on it? Rather than split the House on it, I gently ask the Minister at least to consider the amendment to ensure that psychiatric nurses and prison officers are included in the provisions of clause 9(2).

Nick Gibb: I shall make a brief contribution and oppose amendment 2, tabled by Opposition Members, which would leave out lines 22 and 23 of clause 9— essentially subsection (1)(a) and (b)—and insert in its place
	“65, or current pension scheme age if lower”.
	That would drive a coach and horses in many ways through one of the Bill’s key provisions, which is to have a link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. I think that is an important way to minimise the risk of longevity to the taxpayer.
	Paragraph 4.5 of the final report of Lord Hutton says:
	“It is generally assumed that longevity will continue to increase in the future, but there is significant uncertainty about the scale of any future changes.”
	He goes on to say:
	“Increases in life expectancy have historically been… underestimated”
	when the calculations have been made.
	In paragraph 1.2 on page 22, Hutton says:
	“As a result”
	of this underestimation,
	“pension costs…have been much higher than originally expected.”
	He cites the example of a female pensioner in the NHS scheme who would retire at the age of 60 in 2010, and says that she would be expected to spend around 45% of her adult life in retirement, compared with about 30% for pensioners who retired in the 1950s. That is the issue that Hutton is trying to address. Spending 45% of one’s life in retirement is simply not sustainable for any pension scheme—even one backed up by the vast coffers of the state sector.
	Page 9 of the Hutton report states:
	“The main risks within defined benefit schemes are: investment; inflation; salary”—
	because salaries can be put up without actuaries being aware of the rises—
	“and longevity risk. While government, as a large employer, is capable of bearing the majority of the risk associated with pension saving…present schemes involve too much risk for government and the taxpayer.”
	He went on to say:
	“There should be a fairer sharing of risk between government”
	and scheme members. It is that risk that amendment 2 would push back to the taxpayer.
	Hutton says that the increases in life expectancy have been recognised within the state pension scheme, and he therefore recommends that we should follow that lead when it comes to helping members bear pre-retirement longevity risk. That is why he recommends the link between the state retirement pension age and the normal pension age. Recommendation 11—it is in a shaded box, which will please the shadow Minister—states:
	“The Government should increase the member’s Normal Pension Age in the new schemes so that it is in line with their State Pension Age.”
	Lord Hutton also says:
	“The introduction of the link to the State Pension Age, which will initially move Normal Pension Ages to 65, will move the proportion of adult life in retirement for public service pension scheme members back to about a third: roughly where it was in the 1980s. The current State Pension Age of 65 is already the Normal Pension Age for most new entrants to public service pension schemes.”
	Teachers, for instance, have a 2007 scheme and a pre-2007 scheme. For those who joined before 2007 the normal pension age is 60, while for those who joined after that date it is 65. Lord Hutton goes on to say:
	“In the long term, the timetabled increases in State Pension Age should help to keep the proportion of adult life in retirement for members around this level”
	—that is, a third—
	“on current life expectancy projections.”
	I believe that amendment 2 is a mistake, and would increase risk disproportionately for the taxpayer.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak briefly about amendments 29, 30 and 31, which stand in my name and which would exempt Scottish schemes from the requirement that new schemes should link pension age with state pension age. Amendment 33 is simply a definition of what is meant by “Scottish scheme”—namely a scheme relating to those in local government, teachers, NHS workers, firefighters or the police—for the purpose of clarifying the other amendments.
	On Second Reading, it was clear that the linking of normal pension age to state pension age was a central bone of contention. It has certainly been the main topic of concern mentioned to me by constituents who will be affected by the proposed changes, including teachers, NHS workers and prison officers. It has also been the top priority for unions and other staff representatives taking part in negotiations. It has been the key sticking point in those negotiations, and has caused a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty among employers.
	As has been pointed out by other Members, many people who do physically demanding and stressful jobs will struggle to work into their late 60s. The change will create real difficulties and hardships for those who develop health conditions as they age. It will also make life much more complicated for employers who will have to work around and adapt to the physical limitations of employees who should really have retired.
	The reason this is such an acute issue in Scotland is very simple: our life expectancy is almost two years lower than the UK average. In fact, ours is among the lowest life expectancy levels in Europe. Even given recent improvements and an upward trajectory, male life expectancy in Scotland is only 76 years and female life expectancy just over 80. We also have an unenviable health record. I have previously referred to the widening gap between rising life expectancy and what is defined as “healthy life expectancy”—the years before the average age at which people develop serious physical health problems that impair their normal day-to-day life. At present, women in Scotland have a healthy life expectancy of only 61.9 years, while for men the figure drops to 59.5. In other words, people are already having to work beyond the age at which they can expect to be in reasonably good health.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: I am sorry, but Mr. Speaker has asked me to keep my remarks brief. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear with me.
	A large number of people end up taking early retirement or receiving disability benefit in later middle age. The TUC has done some sterling work in highlighting the large proportion of people who are in that position. Many are having to retire early on reduced pensions, in some cases at a significant cost to their employers. When workplace pressures have contributed to the premature collapse of an employee’s health, that becomes a very costly exercise for everyone involved. I am thinking particularly of prison officers.
	We know that people in physically demanding occupations and those on lower incomes die significantly earlier than affluent people in white-collar jobs. The new hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) mentioned that earlier. Our public sector encompasses a range of occupations, from civil service desk and office jobs to
	the work done by people such as prison officers, paramedics and nurses, which places intense physical demands on them.
	Although the Bill has acknowledged the physical strain that is placed on some workers, such as firefighters and police officers, it does not take proper account of the human limitations of our work force as a whole. In applying such a broad brush to changing demographics, it takes no account of occupational and geographic variances that cut across other aspects of social class. We can legislate on paper as much as we like, but forcing people to work until their health caves in is not a sustainable long-term solution for pensioners. A little more pragmatism from the Government would go a long way, not only in enabling meaningful negotiations to progress, but in designing genuinely sustainable public sector pension provision in the Scottish context for the longer term. If we do not get the design of schemes right, public sector employees are likely to lose confidence in the process, and we will run the risk of individuals choosing to opt out, with all the negative unintended consequences that entails, with additional cost to the state through means-tested benefits.
	My amendments would allow the Scottish schemes to reflect the realities of Scottish circumstances, such as the persistently low life expectancy, and would provide a key flexibility in negotiations with employers, unions, and others. They would exempt Scottish schemes for which the Scottish Government have devolved responsibility from the link to the state pension age and enable meaningful negotiations to proceed with employers and unions, in the interests of not only public sector pensioners but all of us who use and value public services. I shall test the view of the House on amendment 29 and, given the debate we have had on this subject, I hope Members on both sides of the House, including Members representing Scottish constituencies, will support the amendment.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who made some important points about Scotland.
	I oppose Opposition amendments 15 and 16. It was absolutely right for the Government to continue to recognise the specific nature of the roles played by our fire and rescue workers who are firefighters and members of our police forces and armed forces, and it is right that that is reflected through having a lower retirement age. I pay tribute to the Government for recognising that and for pursuing it through legislation.
	Members have talked about the issue of physicality. I agree that it is an important issue, but we should not have a specific provision on it in this Bill. In setting pensions, we have a hope that masquerades as a realistic assumption: people are living longer and we are increasing the retirement age, and we hope that people will perform their work as easily in their later years as in their younger years. We hope that is the case, but it cannot be assumed. If people do not save, they run the risk of having a period of poverty, because they might not be able to continue their work until their pensionable age, so there will be a gap in their earnings. As a nation,
	we have indebted ourselves over the past 20 years far more than any other country. People in this country have not saved to protect themselves financially.
	I do not think this specific issue is pertinent to the Bill, however, as it covers all types of employment and all regions—not only Scotland, but the rest of the United Kingdom, too. I therefore ask the Opposition not to push their amendment to a vote as I believe a broader debate would be more appropriate.

Lady Hermon: What justification does the hon. Gentleman think there could possibly be for excluding from clause 9(2) prison officers, and in particular those in Northern Ireland, who live daily with a deadly threat from a brutal enemy called dissident republicans?

Richard Fuller: The hon. Lady has spoken eloquently and passionately about that point. I do not know whether she was present earlier when I expressed my personal view, but her point may fit in with it. In addition to the issue of physicality, in undertaking their work the people employed in the careers identified in clause 9(2) put their lives at risk. If that is the case for prison officers in Northern Ireland, too, they should be included, and I would be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has to say about that.

Bill Esterson: rose —

Richard Fuller: Other Members want to contribute to the debate, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He might have an opportunity to speak later.
	If we are to change the retirement age for the careers in question, we must undertake those physical tests as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is of a similar age to me, has said that he is going to do the police test, and I have agreed that I will do the firefighter test. I reiterate his challenge to the shadow Minister and to the Minister, both of whom are at least a decade younger than us, to sign up to do those tests if we are to proceed with the Bill at the end of Third Reading. I would be very grateful to hear them accept that challenge, and indeed to hear the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), do so.

John McDonnell: I wish to speak in support of amendments 1, 2 and 9. Amendment 2 is straightforward: it seeks to ensure that people are not forced to retire beyond the age of 65, as most of our work force have planned to retire then. On the argument that the amendment is unaffordable, let me remind hon. Members of what Hutton said about the 2007-08 changes. He said that they are likely to reduce costs to taxpayers of the pension schemes by £67 billion over 50 years, with costs stabilising at around 1% of GDP or 2% of public expenditure.
	The other issue involved here is what our priorities are. The last figure I had for how much the unfunded public sector pension schemes were costing us was for 2009-10, when it was less than £4 billion. Some 60% of gross tax relief on pensions goes to higher rate taxpayers—that is £22 billion. The cost of providing tax relief to the 1% of our population who earn more than £150,000 was double the amount we are funding with regard to the public sector unfunded pensions—that is £8 billion.
	So the fact that we are willing to subsidise the higher paid—the rich—while forcing others to work longer and cutting their pensions at the same time reflects our priorities. That is why I have tabled the amendment: I do not accept the settlement or the Government’s rationale for these proposals.
	Amendment 1 was eloquently discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and I must declare an interest at this point: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. One point that the POA made, which we made on Second Reading, is that if we increase the pension age for prison officers, we lose money because more of them will become injured and more will go off sick, and more cost will be incurred in compensation. The actuarial figures are there almost to prove it, so it is anomalous not to include prison officers. The point about psychiatric nurses is the role they play, particularly in institutions such as Broadmoor, where they are dealing with the most difficult cases—physical challenges—within the NHS. I find it bizarre that we are expecting police officers to retire “early” at 60—I hope we do not go to that—because of the physical nature of their jobs in dealing with criminals, yet when those criminals go into prison it appears that they no longer provide a physical challenge to the officers dealing with them then. The situation is anomalous, which is why I support the amendment to include psychiatric nurses.
	I also tabled amendment 9, and this is specifically for the Fire Brigades Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has said from the Front Bench, the Government have set up, in agreement with the unions, the working longer review in the NHS and the physical assessment in respect of the fire service. Evidence is piling in to those reviews—independent academic evidence, and details of physical tests that have been undertaken—to demonstrate that it is tough to do the job at 55, let alone at 60. I have seen some of the evidence put forward in the fire service review. When the previous Government increased the retirement age to 55 it was on the basis that there would be more firefighters doing preventive work and people could be redeployed into that work. This year, only 15 posts nationally have been available for redeployment, so redeployment is not an option. These people are still out there doing that physical job, and it is unacceptable to push the retirement age to 60. That is why amendment 9 would ensure that the pension schemes would be able to take into account the reviews currently taking place and that we would be able to adhere to a lower retirement age, particularly for firefighters and others as they are justified.
	I am interested to hear what the Government’s responses will be, so I shall finish on this next point. Overall we seek to ensure that there is justice in the Bill, and that is certainly not the case at the moment. I reiterate that the Bill is increasing the contributions and increasing the length of time that people will be working. Given the life expectancy in my constituency, a large number of my constituents will not reach retirement age. Already, a third of all members across the schemes retire within three years of when they should normally do so because they cannot physically continue in the job. They therefore live on reduced pensions and in some poverty. My constituents will contribute more, work longer, most
	probably have a reduced pension at the end of it and have to retire early. That is an unjust deal when we are subsidising the wealthy through tax relief on their pensions.

Sheila Gilmore: I want to address a couple of issues and reinforce some of the points made in Committee. It is not good enough to say that the normal retirement age does not matter because people can retire early if they need to, as they will retire on much lower pensions—that is what actuarial reduction means. Those with many chronic conditions might have several years of suffering with the condition that has made them retire. That is not good enough.
	The way in which the Bill is formulated fixes the retirement age in a way that makes it very difficult to introduce the flexibility that might be required by some scheme reviews. There will be a battle every time a review shows that there should be a lower retirement age, as the Government will be able to point to the Bill and say that that age cannot be moved as that is what Parliament voted for. However, amendment 16, for example, would allow the degree of flexibility required. Many people already do not work in the years running up to the normal retirement ages, not just across the public sector but in the private sector, too. As many are living on reduced incomes and having to dip into any savings they might have put aside for retirement, they are much more likely to become dependent on other state support in older age.
	We have the big issue of longevity, but underneath that lies the fact that a substantial proportion of the population cannot even work until the normal retirement age, particularly men between 60 and 65 in many private sector jobs. Those people are already living on reduced incomes, so if we keep increasing the retirement age more and more people will be in that position.

Sajid Javid: We have had a good debate on this set of amendments, but I am afraid that for reasons of time that are beyond my control I will not have an opportunity to respond on all of them. The main theme in this group is the link between the new normal and deferred pension ages and the members’ state pension age. That will help manage the financial uncertainties associated with longevity changes over the long term. It was a key recommendation of Lord Hutton’s report and is one of the foundations of the Bill.
	The average 60-year-old is now living 10 years longer than in the 1970s. Although that is to be celebrated, it would be irresponsible not to react accordingly to ensure that pension provision is sustainable. Clearly, no Government can allow such a trend to continue unchecked.
	In the short time I have, I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which they have been selected and I will start with 13, 14 and 15. The deferred pension age in the new schemes is vital given the vast number of public servants who claim deferred pensions. That is why the Bill sets the deferred pension age in all schemes as equal to the state pension age, including in the police, firefighters and armed forces schemes. As Members are aware, a normal pension age of 60 in the police, firefighters and armed forces schemes is in line with Lord Hutton’s recommendations and recognises the unique nature of the work involved.
	The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) cannot be accepted by the Government, for two reasons. First, it would be unfair to other hard-working public servants, both those in active service and deferred members whose pension ages would be the state pension age. Of course we value the work of all our police, firefighters and armed forces, but once those people stop doing those jobs, there is no reason for them to be able to take their deferred benefits earlier than everyone else.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give way?

Sajid Javid: I am sorry, I do not have time.
	There is no reason for those workers to be able to take their deferred benefits earlier than everyone else because they are no longer exposed to the unique characteristics of their former employment and no longer need an earlier pension age in respect of them.
	Secondly, we must consider the cost. As we are all aware, the costs of pensions are increasing owing to increases in life expectancy. The state pension age link for deferred benefits is a crucial means of getting those costs under control. For example, if a firefighter leaves service at the age of 30 to work, say, as a civil servant in an office for the rest of his career, should his pension still be available unreduced at the age of 60?
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 29 October  2012 ).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.
	Question  negatived .
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No.  83E ).
	Amendment proposed: 29,page5,line21, after ‘section 1’, insert
	‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.—(Dr  Whiteford .)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 14, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendment proposed: 16, in clause 9,page5,line29, at end insert—
	‘(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply in relation to any category of public service worker as the Secretary of State may by order specify following the publication of a scheme specific capability review.’.—(Chris  Leslie .)
	Question  put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 232, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Final salary link

Amendment made: 35,page11,line3, at end insert ‘(and see section 28(14))’.—(Sajid Javid.)

Clause 33
	 — 
	General interpretation

Amendments made: 36,page18,line28, after ‘person’s’ insert ‘pensionable’.
	Amendment 37, page18,line29, after ‘representative’ insert ‘pensionable’.—(Sajid Javid.)

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Existing pension schemes

Amendment made: 38,page41,line17, at end insert—
	‘(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “compensation benefits” includes benefits by way of payments for resettlement or retraining.’.—(Sajid Javid.)

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Existing injury and compensation schemes

Amendment made: 39,page43,line3, at end insert—
	‘(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “compensation benefits” includes benefits by way of payments for resettlement or retraining.’.—(Sajid Javid.)

Schedule 11
	 — 
	Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Commons Speaker

Amendments made: 40,page57,line20, at the beginning insert ‘Subject to sub-paragraph (2)’.
	Amendment 41,page57,line23, at end insert—
	‘(2) In relation to a term of service as Lord Chancellor beginning on or after 4 September 2012 (but before the day on which section 30 comes into force), the amendments made by paragraph 1 have effect from—
	(a) the day on which section 30 comes into force, or
	(b) if later, the day after that on which the term of service ceases.’.—(Sajid Javid.)
	Third Reading

Sajid Javid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I would like to reflect on the importance of this Bill. First, I reiterate the debt of gratitude that this House owes to Lord Hutton of Furness for his comprehensive and adept work with the independent public service
	pensions commission. The consensus that his report and recommendations have engendered is testament to the care and thoroughness with which he and his team carried out that critical work.
	For decades, successive Governments have failed to address the fact that the existing framework for public service pensions is unresponsive to work force and demographic changes. The simple and fundamental truth is that current schemes are not fit for purpose, and they have not responded effectively to the unprecedented improvements in longevity that we have seen over the last 50 years. Largely as a result of people living longer, the cost of providing public service pensions has increased by 40% over that period. At the same time, the number of active, deferred and pensioner members of schemes has risen significantly.
	Since 1971 the number of active members has increased by 23% to 5.3 million. At the same time, pensioner member numbers increased by more than 260%, from 1.6 million to 4.2 million. Deferred member data are available only from 1991, when there were 1.2 million preserved public service pensions. There are 3.4 million today. Most of the people who entered public service when the schemes were last fundamentally assessed have now retired.

Mike Freer: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s flow, but will he clarify the application of the fair deal policy to the local government pension scheme?

Sajid Javid: We discussed that earlier. Transfers from local government are currently covered by an equivalent policy to fair deal. The Government are considering how most appropriately to apply the principles of the new fair deal policy to the LGPS, but our commitment on fair access to transferred staff stands and applies, including to members of the LGPS.
	People are now expected to live significantly longer than the generation that went before them—an average of 10 years more than someone retiring in the 1970s. The increasing numbers of people with public service pensions and improvements in longevity have led to significant increases in the number of pensions that are being paid. Consequently, the cost of paying pensions has increased to £32 billion per year—an increase of a third in the past decade.

Kelvin Hopkins: Other, similar European countries have a younger retirement age and more generous pensions. Why are we so different?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman perhaps has Greece in mind. Many countries that fit his description are suffering significant problems. To take another example, retirement ages in Germany, which is one of the largest countries in Europe, are in many cases higher than those in Britain.
	The employer, and therefore the taxpayer, has borne nearly all the additional cost, which has led to an imbalance in the sharing of costs between members and other taxpayers. The imbalance will be corrected only by the reforms we have introduced.

Richard Fuller: The Minister makes an important point on tax, but this is the largest bill for the taxpayer that this Parliament will pass—we are passing a £1 trillion bill on to current and future taxpayers. I applaud him and the Government for protecting lower-paid public sector workers from pension changes, for protecting the retirement age, and for career-average schemes, but does he accept that we are still asking taxpayers working in both the public and private sectors to pay an enormous bill for public sector pensions?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend made passionate contributions in Committee, where he made that same point. I will say the same thing in reply. The Bill and other changes we have made to public sector pensions deliver significant cost savings for the Government and future taxpayers, but maintain our commitment to generous, fair pensions that are sustainable in the long term for people who serve in the public sector.
	The Bill is not simply about bringing costs under control and ensuring that schemes are sustainable. We are also seeking to address issues of unfairness that exist within the current scheme designs.

Andrea Leadsom: The Minister mentions unfairness. Does he agree that one of the greatest unfairnesses was when the previous Government got rid of advance corporation tax relief on pension funds, which destroyed the private sector pensions industry and left many private sector workers much worse off than this excellent Bill?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the change to which she refers had a dramatically negative impact on private sector pensions.
	The benefit structure of many existing schemes has led to benefits being disproportionately directed towards higher earners.

Gregg McClymont: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on previous Governments, is the Minister aware that the previous Conservative Government’s decision to ensure that employers could no longer mandate their employees to be in occupational schemes had one of the single biggest impacts on the quality of occupational pensions in the round in this country? The Thatcher Government put that measure through in the 1980s.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have introduced changes to private sector pensions that will help to increase take-up. I am glad that he has raised the policies of previous Governments, because I was about to come on to them.
	Belated changes by the previous Government in the previous decade exacerbated the unequal treatment of members within schemes by introducing reforms that only applied to those who joined from a given date. Those same belated and limited changes also sought to limit costs increasing further in the future. It has often been stated—without foundation, I may add—that those reforms were sufficient to return public pensions to a sustainable footing. They were not. The reforms did not address the historic increases in the cost of providing public service pensions that had taken place in the
	preceding decades. Instead, they provided for any further increases from that point to be shared between employees and employers. That was simply not enough, and is why Lord Hutton concluded that the status quo is not tenable. His report states:
	“Future costs are inherently uncertain”
	and that
	“the general public cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”
	Through the Bill, our reforms to public service pensions will make a difference. Through the framework we have set out, we will ensure that public service workers get a good quality pension that is among the very best available. Members will continue to receive guaranteed benefits with no exposure to investment risk or fluctuating annuity rates, unlike in many private sector schemes. We will also ensure that the taxpayer gets a fair deal by rebalancing the costs between the beneficiaries and other taxpayers, and by capping their contribution towards the schemes, so that costs cannot again spiral out of control.
	Until now, pensions have failed to keep pace with changes in longevity. This is without doubt the single greatest risk to the affordability of schemes in the future. The Bill will ensure that members continue to receive defined benefit pensions, and we will ensure that longevity changes are managed by linking scheme retirement ages to the state pension age.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give a commitment to revisit clause 9(2) to ensure that prison officers do not have to work to 65, particularly in light of the brutal murder of prison officer David Black by dissident republicans on 1 November in Northern Ireland? Will he give that commitment this evening?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady spoke passionately in the debate about this issue and I am sorry that we ran out of time to deal with it. I will respond to it now, but I am sure that she will not be surprised to learn that I cannot give that commitment. There are exceptions to the link to the state retirement age for certain services—Lord Hutton mentioned the police, firemen and others—and that is what we have taken on board. If she will allow me, I will move on.
	As Lord Hutton and others have sought, we have committed to review the appropriateness of that link as changes are made to the state pension age in the future. That commitment is not only important in ensuring that the link continues to remain appropriate in terms of members’ capacity to work, but that the costs of schemes are appropriately managed.
	The Bill will introduce stronger governance, administration and transparency frameworks so that Parliament, the public and scheme members can be assured that the schemes are being run and managed properly. Taken together, the key changes will put public service pensions back on to an affordable and sustainable footing—a sound foundation that can prevail for the next 25 years; a deal that can endure for a generation.
	Throughout the Committee’s consideration of the Bill and earlier in this Chamber, it has been clear that both sides recognise the urgent case for reform. The Opposition have set out their support on occasion. It is, of course, fair to say that there remain a few areas—we
	have discussed some today—where matters are not yet resolved to all parties’ satisfaction. However, I suggest that those areas of disagreement are few and do not detract in any way from what the Government are seeking to achieve with the reforms. We have committed to considering further how members and their representatives are engaged in the administration and future change to their schemes.

Nick Gibb: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. From the evidence session, he will be aware that even Kevin Courtney, deputy general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, which has not signed up to the agreement, said:
	“We are strongly advising our members to opt in and stay with the pension scheme. It will still be a good scheme”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 6 November 2012; c. 205, Q115.]—
	even after the reforms.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I thank him for the excellent contributions he made in Committee and the tremendous experience he brought to it. His point about opt-in is absolutely right. We all heard it in the evidence session. There has been barely any change to participation in public sector pensions, despite some of the changes the Government have already introduced.
	We have committed to ensuring that scheme regulations provide for members to be regularly informed of their pension benefits, so that they understand their value and can better plan for their retirement.

Katy Clark: Given that these changes will reduce the average value of the benefit for all scheme members by more than one third and that many individuals’ contributions will increase, is he not concerned that many will consider opting out, whatever the advice given by people here and by trade unions?

Sajid Javid: As I said, in many cases, increased contributions have already taken place, and there is no evidence of increased opting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) said, one very good reason given for that in the evidence session was that, despite the changes the Government have had to make in order to put public sector pensions on a sustainable footing, they remain among the best pensions available. That will ensure that people continue to take part.
	Although we have not managed to reach a shared view on the exact protections that should be extended to members’ rights, all sides have recognised the common objective that rights should not be allowed to be unlawfully eroded. I strongly believe that the Bill we are sending to the other place is in very good shape. I give a commitment that the Government will return to each of the issues on which I have given assurances, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Christopher Leslie: In an era of increasing life expectancy, it is right and necessary to reform public service pensions in order to ensure that they are affordable and sustainable in the long term. That is why Labour made significant
	changes to public service provisions when in office, including through increasing the normal pension age from 60 to 65, introducing a cap-and-share mechanism to protect taxpayers from increasing costs and reforming contribution levels. According to the Public Accounts Committee, those reforms, implemented by the previous Government, will save the taxpayer £67 billion over 50 years.
	Unfortunately, instead of building on those reforms, the Government ripped up many of them, making sensible reform harder: they have imposed, without negotiation, a steep 3% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the indexation of future pension income from RPI to CPI. Announcing those changes before the Hutton report on pensions was even published was unfair and needlessly provocative. Those changes are not in the Bill, however, so we did not have a chance to address them in amendments and in Committee and on Report.
	Conversely, the main aims of the Hutton reforms in the Bill are ones with which we broadly agree, most notably the shift from final salary to career average defined benefit schemes, the increase in pension age to take account of increasing longevity, and a mechanism to ensure that increasing costs are contained within schemes and do not fall squarely on the taxpayer. It is important for the sustainability of public service pension schemes that those changes are implemented properly, which is why we do not wish to oppose the Bill this evening. However, as we said on Second Reading, we have serious concerns about the detail of the Bill. We said that we hoped the Government would work constructively with us in Committee and the other place to improve it. There was some movement from the Government, but in our view it was not sufficient.

Andrea Leadsom: Can the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that his party would not change the future pensions link from CPI back to RPI?

Christopher Leslie: I do not think it would be sensible to make a permanent “no review” announcement when it comes to indexation, particularly when some of the projections have been showing that the future burden on the taxpayer might not be as great as the Government have made out. For the time being, we have not been able to make propositions on that, because the scope of the Bill did not allow it.
	However, we proposed amendments in a number of other crucial areas in seeking to improve the Bill, focusing particularly on the questions of trust and confidence. We sought to improve the Government’s proposals in a number of ways, most notably in implementing the fair deal—a commitment that was integral to the agreements that had been reached. I am glad that the Minister had the opportunity to correct his words on the local government pension scheme aspect of that, because there were some ripples emanating through the Chamber from some of the previous words he uttered. There is also the question of the Government’s ability to reduce accrued benefits retrospectively. They should have been stronger on that and firmer commitments should have been given as guarantees on replacing defined benefit schemes with new career average defined benefit schemes.

Richard Fuller: There is one other amendment, which I tabled in Committee, but which we did not push to a vote. Perhaps the shadow Minister can say whether he would be interested in having it proposed in another place. Constituents of mine in Bedford and Kempston are being asked to cough up to pay for the pensions of judges and others on salaries of £150,000. It seems particularly unfair that those on £24,000, which is the average income in Bedford—they are also on a pretty high tax rate—should be asked to contribute to a pension scheme for a judge who will retire on a pension that is two or three times larger than such an income. That has not been changed in the Bill so far. I was not sure in Committee whether the Labour party thought it was fair for my constituents to pay for judges’ pensions. Perhaps the shadow Minister can clarify whether he would like that amendment to be moved in another place.

Christopher Leslie: We did not table any amendments on judicial pensions. I suspect that the question of relative taxpayer support for private pensions might come up tomorrow in the autumn statement. I am intrigued that hon. Members have castigated previous Governments for changes that have affected private sector schemes. It will be interesting to see what the effect will be on the sustainability of some of those pension pots, but we can only speculate at this stage and see what happens. However, this question is certainly of the moment. It is only a matter of hours before the Chancellor stands up and—undoubtedly—makes his announcement on pensions tax relief. We will see what happens at that point, but we felt that some significant proposals needed to be made.

Andrea Leadsom: rose —

Christopher Leslie: I am conscious of the time. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady let me conclude my remarks.
	It was argued that we must not bind future Governments by amending the Bill. That was not a very strong argument, given that legislation can be introduced at any time. We also felt that safeguards were needed to address people’s concerns about the effective sequestration of their deferred wages—their pension savings—by retrospective changes. At no point did we propose amendments that contradicted the Hutton principles. We sought to be constructive, and I am grateful that the Minister recognised the constructive changes that we proposed.
	We had some significant victories, and I am grateful to the Minister for at least keeping an open mind on some of these points. In particular, I am pleased that we managed to get a guarantee—it is due in the other place—that future members of defined benefit schemes will receive an annual benefits statement setting out full information on changes to their pensions. That is a big step forward, and I am grateful that the Minister moved on that point.
	We will want to come back to some of those questions in the other place, particularly those on scheme capability reviews and the working longer review in the NHS, and to ask why the Government are irrationally not letting those arrangements come to fruition in the drafting of legislation. I am still not fully convinced that the issue
	of the closure of local government pension schemes has been adequately dealt with, but I know that the Minister has said that he is happy to look into it.
	Many colleagues will naturally have serious doubts about the Bill. That is entirely understandable, given the differences between it and the Hutton proposals. However, pensions reform is important both for the taxpayer and for scheme members themselves. Our hope is that the other place will see the strength of our arguments and make the changes that this House has been unable to secure. We hope that their lordships will appreciate that only through changes to the Bill will we achieve successful and sustainable pension reform. It is with that hope in mind that we shall not oppose the Bill at this stage, but we hope for further improvements in the other place.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. This debate will finish at 7 pm, so short contributions will allow more Members to get in.

Nick Gibb: I support the Bill, because I want to see good-quality defined benefit pensions maintained in the public sector, even at a time when the private sector is experiencing a wholesale shift away from final salary and defined benefit schemes. In the mid-1990s, 5.5 million private sector employees were in some form of defined benefit scheme, yet membership of such schemes had fallen to 2.1 million by 2010, with only 1 million in schemes that were still open to the public. Longevity, low stock market returns and accounting rules have been blamed for the switch, but the last Labour Government’s decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits also had a huge impact, taking £3.5 billion a year from the income of the pension funds. From a total asset value of £650 billion, that represents a significant drop in income.
	Treasury papers from 1997 that were published in 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act revealed civil service concerns about the impact of that decision on private sector pensions and a fear that it might accelerate the shift towards defined contribution schemes. The Labour Government believed that the stock market would continue to rise, and therefore make up any loss to pension funds caused by the loss of the dividend tax credits. The FTSE index stood at 6,900 in 1999, whereas last night it stood at 5,876. It is still more than 1,000 points below its peak in 1999.
	I believe that the proposed final agreement negotiated by the Government will result in public service pensions that are still the best available. They will be defined benefit pensions and will still be regarded as good schemes by the trade unions, even those that have still to accept the negotiated settlement. Chris Keates, the general secretary of NASUWT, has said:
	“Our advice to our members…has to be that they must opt into the scheme.”
	This is a very good Bill. It reflects a good outcome to the negotiations on the reform of public service pensions, and it means that the public sector can be assured of good-quality defined benefit pension schemes that are sustainable in the long run and that address the main concerns raised in Lord Hutton’s report.

Eilidh Whiteford: Most people in Scotland, whether they work in the public sector or not, recognise that these pension reforms—particularly the increase in contributions and the requirement to work for longer—have little to do with designing better pension schemes and everything to do with the short-term aim of deficit reduction. I do not think that public sector employees should be picking up that tab.
	Ministers have relentlessly pursued affordability while abandoning sustainability and fairness. That is the wrong approach at this time. Most public sector workers have faced a pay freeze for the past three years. Their wages have fallen in real terms while they have experienced substantial increases in their cost of living, through increases in the price of food, petrol and domestic heating bills. They are being asked to pay more, to work longer and to accept significantly lower pensions thereafter. To me, that is just not a reasonable proposition. Public sector employees do demanding jobs, often under pressure and in difficult circumstances.

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: I will not; I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
	Many of those public sector workers are already on quite modest wages, and they deserve measured and proportionate schemes that will give them confidence that they are saving adequately for their old age. They want to know that the goalposts will not be shifted yet again as they approach an ever-increasing retirement age. The Bill fails those tests, which is why I will oppose it this evening.

Andrea Leadsom: I welcome this Bill for three particular reasons. First, I welcome the move to career average rather than final salary, which is absolutely key. Secondly, linking eligibility to normal pension age to the state pension age is very important. Thirdly, transitional relief for people with 10 years to go before they retire is vital. I commend the Government for their work.
	I have two further points. First, it is a shocking indictment of the last Government that in 1995 there were 4.1 million public sector workers in a defined benefit scheme, while in 2011 there were 5.3 million—an increase of more than a million public sector workers on defined benefit schemes. Surely it is the legacy of the last Government’s spending money we simply could not afford that has put us in a position where we have had severely to curtail some of the benefits that public sector workers enjoyed in the past.
	Finally, 79% of workers in the public sector have defined benefit pensions as against 9.4% in the private sector. Again, it is a complete indictment of the last Government that they have taken what was one of the best private sector pension arrangements in Europe and made it one of the worst. It will be a great pity if the Opposition do not welcome the attempt in this Bill to sort out the mess that they left us.

Russell Brown: On Second Reading, I fully recognised the views expressed on the Opposition Benches about public sector pensions being some of the poorest pensions, but I want to return briefly to the point I made about police pensions.
	There will be some bitterly disappointed police officers out there this evening. We have heard in the past few minutes about goalposts shifting, while we have also heard about the physically demanding work of prison officers, but it is the exactly the same for our police officers and firefighters. On Second Reading, I commented on the massive changes and pointed out that there is no time for some police officers to recover when the computation is reduced to something like a 30% figure and they are having to work an extra seven years. The projected pension when they first joined the force is now reduced to around 70%. The decisions made in this House have been life-changing ones.

Mark Durkan: On the subject of the implications of pension changes for the police, does my hon. Friend recognise that a far bigger cohort of the Police Service in Northern Ireland is affected, because there has been such a turnover since the Patten commission? These people and their families are still facing targeting by dissidents, and they feel mugged by the Government.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I fully recognise the difficulties faced across the water in Northern Ireland.
	I shall finish now because I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) wants to contribute to the debate. As I was saying, what has been determined in this place this evening and over the past few weeks amounts to life-changing issues. Let us hope that there is a chance for some of it to be corrected in the other place.

Gregg McClymont: I want to make a couple of points about pensions in the round as we come to the end of the debate. We are talking about public sector pensions, but it is worth remembering that our state pension is one of the lowest in Europe; the replacement rate it provides is very low by European standards, so we cannot talk about public sector pensions on their own in that context.
	Equally, we have to be very careful that we do not get into a race to the bottom in respect of private sector pensions. There are real problems with private provision in the UK—not caused, of course, by the previous Government. I had to laugh at some of the contributions from Government Members. The single biggest negative impact on private sector pensions in the UK was the Thatcher Government’s removal of employers’ ability to mandate the work force to be in an occupational pension scheme. That was the beginning of the slippery slope, alongside holidays in pension contributions taken by employers. This rewriting of history by Government Members is ludicrous.

Alan Reid: I just want to put on record that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) attacked her own Scottish
	Government. It is the Scottish Government who decide the level of contributions made to pension schemes in Scotland and how generous those schemes are. Under the Bill, that decision is devolved to them.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 278, Noes 29.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint the Hon. Sir Alexander Neil Logie Butterfield, Elizabeth Jane Padmore, Miss Anne Whitaker and Professor Anthony Wayland Wright to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 11 January 2013.
	The motion provides for the fixed-term appointment to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority of four ordinary members of the board, having effect from 11 January 2013, following the expiry of the existing board members’ term of office on 10 January 2013. I do not intend to detain the House for too long, but it may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the process of these appointments and introduce the candidates. I should point out at this point that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy was appointed for a fixed term of five years, which does not expire until 3 November 2014. He will remain chair of the board.
	The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which established IPSA, states that the board of IPSA consists of the chair and four ordinary members, and establishes certain qualifications for some of those members: at least one must have held, but no longer hold, high judicial office; at least one must be eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor, by virtue of chapter 2 of part 42 of the Companies Act 2006; one must be a person who has been, but is no longer, a Member of the House of Commons; and there must be one other member, for whom no qualification has been specified.
	In 2009, Her Majesty, on an Humble Address from this House, appointed the right hon. Justice Scott Baker, Jackie Ballard, Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp to be the four ordinary members of the board of IPSA, following its establishment. As I said, their terms of office expire on 10 January 2013, three years after their appointment. May I take this opportunity to thank them for their work over the past three years? Nobody in the House will need reminding that the past three years have not been easy, as was somewhat inevitable given what was being asked of IPSA and the time scale they were working to. The National Audit Office, in 2011, recognised that it was a “major achievement” for IPSA to establish itself
	“as a functioning organisation in a very short time”.
	The Office of Government Commerce said that the “impossible” was “delivered”. I am in no doubt that the fact of an independent, transparent, regulator has made a significant contribution to increasing public confidence on the issue of MPs’ expenses, and will continue to do so into the future. Indeed, IPSA is now consulting on the important issue of a long-term proposal for Members’ pay and pensions, which I am sure will further reassure the public that there will be no return to the problems of the past.
	Earlier this year Mr Speaker, recognising that four of the five initial appointments were reaching their end, sought legal advice on the interpretation of the Act as it related to reappointments. The advice was that although the Act permits board members to serve a second fixed
	term, whether consecutive or not, that is subject to the requirement that the names appearing on a motion before this House must have been selected by the Speaker on merit on the basis of fair and open competition: in other words, the posts have to be opened to competition at the end of each fixed term. The four members whose terms of office were expiring did not seek reappointment on that basis. That is a matter for them.
	Following the precedent established in 2009, Mr Speaker appointed an independent panel to run the competition and to report to him with recommendations. The panel was chaired by Dame Denise Platt, a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of IPSA, also sat on the panel, as did Dame Janet Gaymer, a former commissioner for public appointments and lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
	The panel was assisted in its deliberations by the right hon. Sir Anthony May QC, who was nominated to the panel by the Lord Chief Justice; Martin Sinclair, assistant auditor general of the National Audit Office, who was nominated to the panel by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and Peter Atkinson, former MP for Hexham, who was nominated to the panel by Mr Speaker. Those individuals were able to provide insights into the statutory qualifications for IPSA required of board members, as I set out previously.
	Mr Speaker provided the panel with a role and person specification for the board posts, which he had agreed with Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. The recruitment process involved stages of advertisement, longlisting, shortlisting and final interview. The panel’s recommendations to the Speaker were made in the form of a ranked list, with reasons, to support selection on the basis of merit. The names on the motion were selected by Mr Speaker, with the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as required by the statute.
	The candidates before the House are the hon. Sir Neil Butterfield, who has held high judicial office as a High Court judge sitting in the Queen’s bench division from 1995 to 2012; Liz Padmore, for the post to which no specific qualifications apply, who has a wide range of public and private sector experience, most recently as chair of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Miss Anne Whitaker MA ACA, proposed for appointment as the auditor member of IPSA; and Professor Tony Wright, formerly Member for Cannock Chase, who is proposed as the parliamentary member of IPSA. A short career profile for each has been made available to Members as part of the explanatory memorandum supporting this debate. I do not intend to detain the House by going through their extensive résumés, but I can assure the House that each candidate would bring a wealth of relevant experience to their respective posts.
	Under paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, the terms and conditions for each appointment are determined by the Speaker. Clearly, it is better for IPSA if appointments to its board expire over a period, not all together, providing greater continuity of governance. Mr Speaker therefore asked the independent panel, as part of its assessment, to consider and recommend varying lengths of appointment for the candidates. The panel recommended that two candidates be appointed for three years and two for five years. Sir Neil Butterfield has been recommended for a three-year appointment,
	reflecting his own preference, and Professor Tony Wright has been recommended for a three-year appointment, so that the next competition for a parliamentary member of IPSA can take place shortly after the general election that is due in 2015.
	It is a matter of public record that Sir Ian Kennedy wrote to Mr Speaker to express concerns about the process before the independent panel was appointed. Members might wish to note, however, that after the independent panel had reported, Sir Ian Kennedy issued a statement saying that that the independent panel was
	“chaired impeccably by Dame Denise Platt and proceeded in a thoroughly proper manner”,
	and that his “fears were not realised”. He has also issued a statement describing the nominees as “impressive individuals” giving him “great confidence” for IPSA’s work.
	In this debate it is important that we should keep in mind the reasons why IPSA was created and the importance of the work it has still to do. It was established at great speed and in difficult circumstances and we should recognise that under Sir Ian Kennedy’s leadership the board of IPSA has made a significant contribution to the task of establishing the authority and ensuring there is transparency about Members’ business costs and expenses. These steps are essential to the restoration of the public’s confidence in their Parliament.
	It is of great importance, in my view, that we uphold the independence of IPSA. This enables us to refute any implication that Members of Parliament can seek to manipulate the system to their advantage. As we have seen, it is not proof against the interpretation of the media, but for any reasonable person, an MP’s adherence to the rules set by IPSA should be a sufficient defence.
	The four individuals named in the motion have been through a rigorous and independent recruitment process to be considered by the House today. If appointed, they will bring to IPSA not only the experience required by the statute, but a considerable range of skills and knowledge acquired in both the public and private sectors.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Eagle: As the Leader of the House has just pointed out, the proceedings before us today are required under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. As I am sure Members in all parts of the House will recall, this is the statute which set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It requires that the board of IPSA consist of four ordinary members and a chair. The chair, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, was appointed for a fixed term of five years, which runs out in November 2014, but the board members all have appointments which expire on 10 January 2013, so it has been necessary to hold a selection process to find a successor board. It is the result of this process that the House is considering today.
	Again as the Leader of the House pointed out in his remarks, the IPSA board has to meet certain very particular specifications. Under the Act, one board member must have held high judicial office, one must be eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor, and one must have served in the House of Commons. The appointments panel convened by the Speaker has done a very thorough job and come forward with four candidates
	who more than fulfil the statutory requirements of the 2009 Act. On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, may I endorse both the candidates who have been selected and the scrupulously fair and independent process by which that was achieved?
	It is only right that I endorse the thanks that the Leader of the House has already put on record to Dame Denise Platt, a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of IPSA, and to Dame Janet Gaymer, a former commissioner for public appointments and a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA, who sat on the appointments panel. I also join the Leader of the House in thanking those who assisted them in their considerations: the right hon. Sir Anthony May QC, who was nominated to the panel by the Lord Chief Justice; Martin Sinclair, who was nominated to the panel by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and Peter Atkinson, who was nominated by the Speaker.
	It is crystal clear from the form of the appointments panel and those who assisted it that this was a scrupulously fair and independent process, and I hope that no one will seek to cast any aspersions on it at any time in the future. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for putting a few things straight in his remarks about the nature of this process and the reason for conducting it in that particular way. It is also sensible to put on record Sir Ian Kennedy’s evident satisfaction with both the process and the outcome of the appointments panel, despite his initial unhappiness.
	I agree that the Speaker’s decision to stagger future appointments so that the board members’ terms of office do not all expire at the same time is sensible. It is an obvious improvement on the current arrangements, which I hope the House will endorse tonight.
	IPSA needs to demonstrate its robust independence from both Parliament and the Government of the day. It needs to do this by the process and in the content of the decisions that it reaches. Part of IPSA’s job is to communicate and explain any decisions that it makes to the public and to defend Parliament as an institution from unfair criticism on costs and expenses, which are now clearly decided independently by IPSA.
	It only remains for me to thank the outgoing members of the IPSA board for the work they have done, and to welcome their successors and wish them well in their job for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. I point out that the motion—I am sure that every Member has read it—is a narrow motion.

Bob Russell: I welcome the appointment of the four new board members and trust that they will bring a commitment to the job that I think, on occasion, was sadly lacking on the part of the four departing. I refer to the fact that attendance at board meetings was not always their top priority. On one famous occasion, only one of the five board members—the chairman—was present and the other four conducted the business down the phone. I am confident that the four new members will not follow that procedure, which is why I welcome them.
	The Leader of the House referred to the National Audit Office in his introduction. He could have added that it estimates that 92% of Members of Parliament now subsidise their work. I trust that is something the new board members will address, along with the fact that 38% of claims cost more to process than the amount claimed.
	The new board members have a job to do that the previous board did not. As a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I feel that the manner in which two of the departing four—incidentally, not one of them sought reappointment, which speaks volumes—launched what can only be described as a personal attack on Mr Speaker was unfair and simply unacceptable. I look forward to their apologising to Mr Speaker at some point, because it was the Committee that made the decisions; Mr Speaker acted in the name of the Committee. I welcome the four individuals, but I am not at all sorry to see the previous four go.

John Mann: I find it quite extraordinary that Parliament feels it appropriate to debate or comment on people who are appointed to public office without their having some kind of right of reply here. I think that is regrettable. I am certain that the individuals who have been put forward are excellent people who will do an excellent job, in precisely the same way that those who served the public previously did an excellent job in establishing the organisation.
	My concern and regret—this is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, who is bound by what Parliament has previously agreed—is that the motion is in front of Parliament at all, and indeed that SCIPSA exists at all. In the three years since IPSA was set up, Parliament has had the opportunity to separate out properly and entirely all matters relating to pay and conditions, rather than have any semblance of control, influence or direction, however distant, over such matters. The fact that the appointments have been made with parliamentary involvement demonstrates that we have not yet gone far enough in isolating pay and expenses entirely from everything else we do. That is the fundamental error that was made before.
	I therefore ask the Leader of the House to consider, with the four new board members, establishing a dialogue to determine whether they could bring forward and recommend to us a better system in which we would have no involvement whatever in future appointments, whether ratification or anything else, so that there is a complete separation between Parliament and those who decide our pay and expenses. It seems to me that the public would support that. Equally important, I think that would strengthen our position as legislators. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider it.

Christopher Chope: I wish to say a little about what the new board members are going to do in terms of getting trained and educated about what we do in this House. Their statutory responsibility is to determine Members’ pay and allowances—I emphasise
	the word “allowances” because that is the expression in the statute, although that is not how it has been interpreted by the current board and its chairman.
	It is surely important that anybody who is looking at terms of pay and conditions should understand a bit about the job of the people whose pay and conditions they are sitting in judgment over. As you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the morning of 22 November this year the current chairman of IPSA, who sat on the board that selected the four candidates whose names are before the House tonight, told the “Today” programme that he knew a lot about what Members of Parliament did in their constituencies, but admitted to ignorance about what they did in this great House of Commons. That is after three years in the position, which he holds for only five years. In other words, after 66% of his time in post, he still admits that he is ignorant. He said that the only thing he knew about what Members of Parliament did was that they attended, as he put it, “a zoo” on a Wednesday. Later that day, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he would organise a programme of education for Sir Ian Kennedy. He assured me that Sir Ian had always shown a willingness and desire to learn more about the work of the House, and obviously put him in a strong position to be able to show leadership to the new members of the board.
	Pursuant to that, I wrote to Sir Ian on the following day, 23 November, setting out in detail everything that I had done in this House on Thursday 22 November, including asking a question about him. That covered the time between about 8.30 am and after 10 o’clock at night, when I returned to my constituency home. In the letter, which I said I was quite prepared to have treated as an open letter, I invited him to come along and shadow me for a day in the House so that I could show him exactly what we do here because he is so ignorant of it. I had assumed that by now, in the knowledge that we were having this debate, which my right hon. Friend flagged up when he responded to my business question, the chairman of IPSA would have responded to me, but he has not yet done so. I therefore wonder whether he really is interested in finding out what we do here. I hope that other members of the board will have a greater appetite for learning about it before they feel able to comment on our pay, allowances and pensions.

Stewart Jackson: On the subject of pay and conditions, and the transparency and probity that IPSA is responsible for upholding in this place, does my hon. Friend deprecate, as I do, the fact that despite a very strong lead from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Government, IPSA set its face against that policy in paying its interim chief executive, through a tax-avoiding personal service company, the sum of £39,000?

Nigel Evans: Order. I said that this is a very narrow motion, and that is certainly way outside its scope.

Stewart Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The comments that I made relate specifically to the duties and responsibilities of board members, which are to protect the probity, honesty and transparency of this place, and I would respectfully submit that that is in order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to you for challenging the order of the Chair. I said that it was outside the scope of the motion, and it is.

Christopher Chope: May I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to address the issue of whether there is going to be an induction programme for the new members of the board? As a modernising House, we have induction programmes for new Members of Parliament and I think that they have been well received. I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding. Although I know that it is strictly outside the scope of the motion to say that the existing chairman should be invited to attend such an induction programme, perhaps he could be invited—even though it is three years late—so that those who sit on the independent board can be informed about our work.

Bob Russell: Earlier the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the importance of the word “allowances”. Does he agree that the new board members should address IPSA’s use of the phrase “business costs,” because Members of Parliament are not businesses?

Christopher Chope: That is correct. Indeed, ironically that point was made to me, unsolicited, by a senior colleague in the Tea Room on Thursday 22 November. I sat down in the Tea Room at 7.15 pm after realising that I had not had any lunch that day, and the first thing that this colleague said to me was the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I have included that in my letter to Sir Ian.
	I do not often do this, but I told the House that I was concerned about the quality of the existing board members when we debated their appointment some three years ago. Indeed, I tabled an amendment proposing that we should exclude one particular member from the board—the former Member of Parliament for Taunton—on the basis that she had only been a Member of this House between 1997 and 2001 and I was sceptical about whether she would be able to contribute fully. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman says that I was right to be sceptical, but I have to point out that on that occasion the Liberal Democrats used a procedural device to ensure that my amendment was not voted on and the main motion was then passed.
	I continue to take an interest in this matter and hope that next time we debate the issues I will be able to report back on how Sir Ian’s day of induction with me went.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and to the other Members who have contributed to the debate.
	I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to believe that the IPSA board will provide the House with a proposal for a new scheme for appointments. The body was established under the Parliamentary Standards Act and is bound by it, and the nature of the appointment scheme is set out in that legislation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made a number of points. I am sure that Sir Ian Kennedy will respond to him and I will invite
	Sir Ian to include in that response a reference to how the board intends to have an induction programme for its new members. That is, of course, a matter for the board—it is not a matter for me or, indeed, for the House—but I will invite him to respond on that point.

Bob Russell: In his discussions, will the Leader of the House suggest that the website that gives details of board meetings should be kept more up to date? It notes that the last board meeting took place in July, but I assume that it has met in the past five to six months.

Andrew Lansley: I will ask Sir Ian Kennedy to respond to that point, too. I confess that I do not know whether the board has met since July, but he will no doubt be able to better inform my hon. Friend.
	I have known Sir Ian Kennedy over a number of years—less in the IPSA context than in his previous role as chair of the Healthcare Commission; I knew him in his capacity in that role—and think that on 22 November he probably understated his knowledge of Members of Parliament and what they do in this place. He probably regrets that, but I know from my conversations with him that he regards knowledge of the role of MPs and their activities and important work as important. He also believes it important not only for IPSA to recognise that fully in what it does, but for the public to recognise it as part of an understanding of how IPSA goes about its work and makes its decisions.

Angela Eagle: Does the Leader of the House agree that Sir Ian has been taken back by the lack of understanding among the public of the role of Members in this House? It may be that he misspoke on the radio and attributed to himself the understanding that he had picked up from the public consultation, which is that many members of the public know about Prime Minister’s questions, but not the detail of what else we do in this House. I expect that that is what he meant.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Sir Ian may well have been reflecting the public’s perception. They understand much more about what we do as constituency Members of Parliament and, frankly, they value it more. I know from conversations with Sir Ian that that is something that he, as well as we in this House, hopes to remedy. One of the substantial number of criteria in the person and role specification that was agreed between Mr Speaker and Ian Kennedy, which would have been reflected in the panel’s judgments, was a candidate’s understanding and awareness of the role of Members of Parliament.

Christopher Chope: Is it not correct that in that radio interview, Sir Ian Kennedy had the opportunity to explain to the public who were listening what we do here? He could have told them about his understanding of what Members of Parliament do, but instead, he chose to use a cheap jibe, pandering to public prejudice.

Andrew Lansley: I understand what my hon. Friend says. Sir Ian must speak for himself as this is his responsibility. The shadow Leader of the House and I were just reflecting our own conversations with him. He would have wanted to reflect his desire for the public to know more about what we do here and his belief that IPSA should fully understand the nature of the work that we
	do. If he did not reflect that in his interview on the “Today” programme, he will no doubt have an opportunity to remedy that in future.
	I am grateful to Members for the points that they have made in this debate. I hope, along with other Members, that the members nominated in the motion take forward the important work that IPSA has to do in the years ahead.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Services) (Transport of Goods) Order 2012 (S.I., 2012, No. 2787), dated 6 November 2012, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Animals

That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15440/11 and Addenda 1 to 3, relating to a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020), and No. 13483/12, a Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2011; agrees with the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2011; agrees with the Government that there is no evidence to support an extension of the European Globalisation Fund into the next Multiannual Financial Framework; and supports the Government’s view that, if a new European Globalisation Fund is to be included in the 2014–2020 Budget, it should not be financed through appropriations but should operate under a separately agreed budget, and should be thoroughly evaluated on a more frequent basis.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

MINDFULNESS-BASED THERAPY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky  Morgan .)

Chris Ruane: I wish to make a speech about mindfulness and unemployment. I have given up a lot to be here tonight according to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I could have gone to the Irish ambassador’s Christmas party. That is how important my speech is. [ Interruption. ] I think that my hon. Friend is going there now.
	The World Health Organisation states that by 2030, mental health will be the biggest cause of burden out of all health conditions, including heart conditions and cancer. The term “burden” is not an emotive or pejorative term, but a scientific term that is measured in years of lost life due to early death or severe disability brought on by illness, in this case depression.
	We need not wait until 2030 to find out whether that will be the case; the indicators are already there. Some of those indicators have been revealed in the answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled. For instance, the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressants has gone from 9 million to 46 million over the past 10 years. That is a 500% increase. In a follow-up question, I asked what assessment Ministers had made of the treatment of such people. The answer was that no assessment had been made. Some 10% of children are obese at age five, and by age 10 that figure is 20%. What is happening to those young people over that period?
	The response given last week to a parliamentary question stated that 32% of young people between 16 and 24 suffer with a psychiatric disorder that could range from a mild condition such as anxiety or stress through to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Evidence from other sources points to how endemic such problems are across the western world: 50% of the population in every US state is overweight or obese, rising to 75% in some states. The total value of illegal drugs worldwide is £400 billion. That is a huge sum, most of which is spent by people—as Freddie Mercury might have said— escaping their own reality.
	Some 25% of UK citizens will suffer mental illness. What can be causing those shifts in well-being? There are many potential causes and theories. Some trace it back to the 1980s and the release of rampant individualism that led to a rise in consumerism and materialism. Some, such as the psychiatrist and journalist Oliver James, say that the rise of modern advertising in the post-war period has promoted consumerism, and that our individual wants can never be satiated while advertising continues.
	Others such as Robert Putnam, the author of “Bowling Alone”, maintain it is caused by societal breakdown and people retreating to their home, the television, or spending three hours a day commuting or computing. Professor Richard Wilkinson traces it back to inequality. Food additives, information overload, job insecurity, fear of crime or terrorism, geographical mobility or family breakdown could also contribute to that decrease in well-being.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important issue before the House. Youth unemployment is as high as 30% in parts of the United Kingdom, and it is also high in Northern Ireland. In certain parts of the Province, where we have idle hands we have other problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something must be done to reduce youth unemployment, and that the issue he raises might be a way of doing that?

Chris Ruane: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Giving young people antidepressants is not the cure. We need a range of tools and I believe that mindfulness will be key. He is right to say that the devil makes work for idle hands. I have given the statistics and we need young people, to be in work and positively contributing to society, rather than being sidetracked into criminality or—dare I say it?—to terrorism in Northern Ireland.
	The exact causes of the problem may not be known, but people now feel that they are far from themselves and are on a hedonic treadmill. They are working for consumer durables for themselves and their children, to impress neighbours who perhaps they do not even like. The rate of mental health problems among the general public is worrying, but among the long-term unemployed it is much higher.
	Recent scientific research has measured the impact of long-term unemployment on mental illness, and it has physical effects on the brain. Research shows that those who experience a bout of long-term unemployment never fully recover. It usually takes two or three years to recover from the death of a close one, but long-term unemployment leaves permanent psychological and physical damage on the individual, their family and community.
	The damage that long-term unemployment does to young people just starting their career is particularly harsh. A few minutes ago I gave the percentage of young people who experience mental health problems—the exact figure is 32.3% of 16 to 26-year-olds who tested positive during screening for one or more psychiatric condition. There are 1 million long-term unemployed young people in that age bracket, and their life chances have been diminished from the outset.
	For many politicians on both sides of the House, the unemployed are just numbers or percentages with which to bash each other over the head. The true impact on the individual, their family, community and society is not fully appreciated by many Members. The unemployed are portrayed in the media as feckless or wastrels, and the disabled have been particularly marked out. I do not include the Minister or the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) who are present in the debate, but some Conservative Members have used terminology with which I would not agree, and which has led to an increase in hate crimes towards the disabled over the past year. Only one category of the five hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation has increased—that towards the disabled.
	The language and tone of some politicians, amplified in the media, is responsible for that. It is no wonder that in constituencies such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, where 85 people are chasing each job, there is a lack of sympathy for the unemployed. There is no modern Yosser Hughes to portray the slow disintegration of an individual within his family, community and finally himself. The negative reinforcements of such labelling
	and alienating behaviour serves only to make those affected by unemployment and mental illness more difficult to place in work.
	The current preferred treatment for depression is antidepressants. As I have said, I was informed in a recent parliamentary answer that the number of prescriptions issued went from 9 million to 46 million. The increase in the use of antidepressants occurred in the past 10 years, but in 2004, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said that mindfulness was a better way to treat repeat-episode depression. It is a proven and scientifically accepted way of improving mental illness, but it has not been taken up. When I have tried to find out whether mindfulness has been taken up by general practitioners and hospitals, the answer has always been that the information is not collected centrally. I believe that it needs to be collected centrally.
	How can mindfulness help with unemployment? It can both prevent people from becoming unemployed, limit the effects of unemployment, and help people to get back to work. What is mindfulness? Mindfulness is an integrative mind-body based approach that helps people to change how they think and feel about their experiences, especially stressful experiences. It involves paying attention to our thoughts and feelings so that we become more aware of them, less enmeshed in them, and better able to manage them. It uses breathing to slow the mind and the body down—it uses breath as an anchor to help us to live in the present moment.
	The DUP—

Jim Shannon: We are to blame for everything.

Chris Ruane: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The Democratic Unionist party may have co-funded the pilots in Northern Ireland, but the DWP—the Department for Work and Pensions, which is what I meant to say —has co-funded pilots on the use of mindfulness in helping people to get back to work. A three-year pilot in Durham finished in 2010. The pilot was jointly funded by the DWP and Durham county council, and there was an element of European funding. It dealt with the most difficult cases—people who were unemployed for between one and 15 years. The average length of unemployment was three years. Depression, and loss of self-confidence and self-worth, had already set in. The catchment area was the Derwentside-Consett area, which had experienced mass unemployment in the ’80s and ’90s.
	I spoke today to Gary Heads, the organiser of the project. He told me that not only were clients trained in mindfulness, but jobcentre staff, too. A traditional mindfulness course usually lasts eight weeks. This one lasted for four weeks, consisting of two and a half hours taught course each week, with 45 minutes of homework a day. The cost was minimal—£300 for each person on the course—but the benefits were maximum. Of the 300 clients who attended, 47% found employment within six months. The 53% who did not find work were placed on a traditional full mindfulness course. Ninety per cent. of those who started the course finished it. Pre-screening ensured that the drop-out rate was minimal and efficiencies were maintained. All who attended were, as I have said, from the difficult-to-reach categories.
	The report on the pilot will be finished early next year. Will the Minister assess it? If it can be rolled out immediately, I urge him to do so. If it requires further
	refinement, I urge him to do it. Gary Heads particularly praised the head of the employment team, Bernadette Topham, who gave support to the project and was pleased with the results. The scheme came to end after three years because—I was informed—the local authority pulled the funding.
	Mindfulness-based interventions can and do work. I mentioned steel and coal communities. The new steel and coal communities will have high numbers of public sector workers. In my constituency, 46% of workers work in the public sector. In the neighbouring constituency of Clwyd West, it is 45%. We need to prepare for the mass lay-offs that will occur in such constituencies throughout the country. Mindfulness-based interventions have been used by Google, Apple, the American military since 2009, and American prisons, emergency services, schools and hospitals for the past 40 years. We need to make an assessment of what has worked over there and whether it will work over here.
	Mindfulness-based therapy has been rigorously tested in the laboratory, using MRI and electrical scanners. Electrical activities in different parts of the brain have been monitored in the laboratory. Its efficacy in treating a whole range of mental and physical conditions, including bipolar disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and psoriasis, have been tested and proved to work. It also helps the immune system and the healing process.
	Mindfulness has proven to be beneficial in the workplace, with participants more engaged in their work. With a greater ability to concentrate, workers become more compassionate, both with themselves and their co-workers. When used in prisons, prisoners become less aggressive and hostile, and have fewer mood disturbances. It has helped those who suffer from long-term pain, lessening the use of painkillers and their damaging side-effects.
	Mindfulness is not just for those who suffer with mental health issues, or who work in high stress occupations— its applications go far beyond that. It is being used in education. In primary schools in my constituency, it is used to train five-year-olds to be more mindful, to live in the present moment and to concentrate. Its effect on personal relationships within families and marriages has also been recorded.
	Felicia Huppert, the mother of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), is one of the foremost well-being researchers. She maintains that the bell curve of well-being can be shifted for the whole nation. The biggest gainers will be those below the curve. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his work on well-being, which was a bold, innovative and forward-thinking step. This could help to deliver the targets on well-being in the years to come.
	It has been estimated that sickness related to mental health costs the economy £12 billion in lost productivity, because people take sick leave, and in lost taxes and increased benefits. Surely, if there are successful pilots, such as the two I have outlined, this should be taken up across the country. They would cost a fraction of the £12 billion being lost. The savings to the Exchequer could be massive, public and private sector companies could be more efficient and workers less stressed, more resilient and happier in their workplace.
	One of the biggest barriers to the take-up of mindfulness is that GPs do not know about it. Surveys have been conducted by the Mental Health Foundation. More than two-thirds of GPs say that they rarely or never refer their patients with recurrent depression to mindfulness-based practices, and 5% say that they do so very often. GPs do not know about it. Politicians do not know about it. I have asked dozens of questions—perhaps hundreds—on mindfulness and often the response comes back that information is not collected centrally. I urge the Minister to do all he can.
	Another reason why mindfulness has not been taken up is that there is no effective political lobby for it. The pharmaceutical industry worldwide spends £19 billion lobbying GPs and politicians to tell them that their latest drug is fantastic—stuff it down children’s throats. That is what happened with GlaxoSmithKline, which received a £2.9 billion fine in America in July. It is a powerful lobby that dismisses any alternative therapies. We need to be open. We need to meet with mindfulness practitioners and academics. We should be spreading best practice in our prisons, armed forces, emergency services, the NHS and in the DWP.
	In conclusion, I have a number of requests for the Minister. Will he ask the private sector providers of the Work programme if they will engage with the mindfulness experts, practitioners and academics across the UK? In particular, I highlight the work of Mark Williams, in Oxford university, and Rebecca Crane and her team, in Bangor university, north Wales. Will he meet Health Ministers to see whether the Department of Health can play its full and proper role in promoting mindfulness? Will his civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions assess best practice within the pilots they have sponsored so far, and will they spread this best practice?
	Will the Minister visit Durham to see the legacy of the pilot scheme that finished in 2010? Will he visit the real city strategy, in my town, which is using mindfulness and other psychological interventions to help people stay in work, through the fit for work programme, and to reintegrate the unemployed, some of whom are in very difficult circumstances. We have recovering drug addicts and alcoholics working on a local farm. We have disconnected, alienated young people working with animals, including through the coastal hawks project. We have a Jamie Oliver-type restaurant training young people and helping them gain full employment. So there is best practice out there, and I am asking the Minister to go out and visit those projects.
	Will the Minister personally meet mindfulness experts and practitioners across the UK? We have many fine academics who have given years, if not a lifetime, of work to the development of mindfulness. They have a strong story to tell, and they have the scientific proof to back up what they are saying. Will he use mindfulness in his own Department? I have put questions to every Department about sickness levels. They have gone up massively. This is a powerful tool that could help Ministers reduce sickness in their Departments. Lastly, will he keep an open mind towards, and be mindful of, the issue of mindfulness?

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this debate.
	He commented about the effectiveness of the lobbying by pharmaceutical companies, but I think he has done a rather effective job himself in lobbying for mindfulness. He said that he was missing the Irish ambassador’s party tonight. In my research for the debate, I discovered that mindfulness was of growing interest in Ireland, so I expect that the Irish ambassador will be mindful of his explanation for not being there tonight.
	The Department recognises the role that a wide range of interventions can play in supporting people to move into work. Mindfulness therapy is a psychological approach to well-being that people report as being helpful in the workplace. The principles behind mindfulness therapy are extremely interesting and, by many accounts, can be helpful in alleviating distress. As I understand it, mindfulness encourages people to focus on their present experiences in the here and now, without making judgments about the experiences. It is rooted in Buddhism, but has been westernised through medicine and psychology.
	Mindfulness can be delivered in a wide range of ways—the hon. Gentleman referred to the Durham pilot, which I will return to later. People can be taught it through meditation and other techniques, in group sessions delivered every week for eight weeks, with follow-up sessions over the course of the next year. Some advocates believe it has the potential to be used in a range of circumstances, such as for stress at work, for personal problems, and for managing chronic pain, substance abuse and unemployment.
	As with all medical and therapeutic interventions, however, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should be the key deciding body for reviewing the evidence about which interventions should be used and when. Mindfulness is one of several therapy services approved by NICE, which has indicated its benefits in preventing the relapse of depression. In particular, NICE proposes the use of mindfulness for people who are currently well but who have experienced three or more previous episodes of depression. The value of mindfulness as approved by NICE, therefore, is a useful health intervention to prevent relapse among people who have experienced depression.
	As the hon. Gentleman made clear, mindfulness therapy is an emerging and important field. We will watch with interest the outcome of the randomised controlled trials that are under way—not only in preventing relapse, but for treatment of long-term conditions. As he said, a number of organisations are involved in research into mindfulness. Bangor university and the Oxford Mindfulness centre are examples. In answer to one of his many questions, we will remain open-minded about mindfulness-based therapy; the challenge is to demonstrate how it will work.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the programme in County Durham, in Derwentside. My understanding is that it is a pilot that the Department for Work and Pensions oversaw. He is right that we need to look at the evaluation of it. The point I would make to him—we make this point in connection with all evaluations of pilots that the Department undertakes—is that we tend to benchmark pilots against what would happen in the absence of intervention. We will look at how the rate at which people sign off benefit having gone through the mindfulness pilot compares with the rate of people coming off benefit in other areas, so that we can judge its effectiveness and report back.
	Let me respond to the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. He asked about the Work programme. It is designed so that it is for providers to determine which approaches are best at helping to get people back into sustainable employment, and they clearly need to understand which approaches and therapies are most effective. In order to embed mindfulness, the centre in Bangor or Oxford might want to work with some providers to see how mindfulness could be used more widely.

Chris Ruane: That is an excellent suggestion, but all I am asking of the Minister is to write to those private sector providers to tip them the wink and say, “There are established British centres of excellent; please could you make an assessment of them?” because I do not think they even know about mindfulness therapy.

Mark Hoban: The model was set up so that providers have the initiative to make innovations and that it should not be Ministers telling them what to do. There is a role that the centres can play. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might engage with the two Work programme providers in Wales—Working Links and Rehab JobFit—to see whether they might want to work with Bangor university on this issue.
	I know from talking to the Minister of State at the Department of Health just this afternoon that the Department is aware of the issues around mindfulness therapy—the fact that the hon. Gentleman asked about it at Health questions last week has ensured that it is certainly on the ministerial radar.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the evaluation of best practice. Let us see what it says, what lessons should be drawn from it and, if it is successful, how it might be scaled up for use. He suggested that I should visit Durham.

Chris Ruane: It’s a long way.

Mark Hoban: It is not a long way and it is not difficult to visit. I was in Durham last month and I will be there later this month, as my family happen to live there, so I might visit Jobcentre Plus to understand just how that evaluation worked and what the evidence is.
	I am delighted to be invited to Rhyl—it would not be my first visit. I will bear it in mind, because one of the issues we face is ensuring that we find new ways to help and support people with a range of mental health conditions, and there may be some value to be seen in the pilot there.
	The hon. Gentleman encouraged me to meet mindfulness therapy practitioners. I have many strengths, but an understanding of psychological therapy is not one of them, but I will ensure that contact is made with either Bangor university or the Oxford centre, and that officials from my Department engage with them in order to understand it.
	We take mental health conditions seriously. We need to ensure that support is put in place through Jobcentre Plus to help people to get into work; that, too, is something that we take seriously. Throughout the Jobcentre Plus network, work psychologists and mental health and well-being partnership managers are available to support advisers and to work with their counterparts and providers in the mental health service. That support is there for Jobcentre Plus advisers. All jobcentre staff with a claimant-facing role go through mandatory training
	modules to help them to support claimants with mental health problems and to refer them to specialist support if appropriate.
	Last week, my noble Friend Lord Freud launched the mental well-being and employment toolkit for employment advisers. It has been produced and designed by Work programme and specialist mental health and employment providers. It is a free-to-use product that will help advisers to use employment discussions to identify mental health and well-being needs and to support people to access appropriate therapy services. One of the challenges is to identify those needs and to effect the appropriate referral. Debates such as these are important, because they raise the profile of these issues and ensure that they are on people’s radar screens.
	The hon. Gentleman will know from his contacts in the Jobcentre Plus office in his constituency that each Jobcentre Plus has a disability employment adviser.
	They work with claimants facing complex employment situations resulting from a disability or health condition. Notwithstanding the debate on mindfulness, those resources exist within Jobcentre Plus to support claimants with such conditions. Those advisers can also act as an advocate with prospective employers on behalf of the customer, and they aim to identify work solutions that will minimise or overcome any difficulties related to an individual’s disability in the workplace.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this issue. It is something that we need to look at carefully. We need to find every possible way to help people to get back into the labour market and to support them in getting there. I hope that, as people develop their understanding of mindfulness therapy, it might become a tool that could have a wider application.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.